GIFT   OF 
H.  E.  Van  Norman 


UNIVERSITY  FARM 


THE  OLEOMARGARINE  BILL. 


HEARINGS 


THE  COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE  AND  FORESTRY, 


UNITED  STATES   SENATE, 


THE  COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


REPORTS,  BRIEFS,  ETC., 


ON 


THE  BILL  (H.  R.  3717)  TO  MAKE  OLEOMARGARINE  AND  OTHER  IMITATION  DAIRY 

PRODUCTS  SUBJECT  TO  THE  LAWS  OF  THE  STATE  OR  TERRITORY  INTO 

WHICH  THEY  ARE  TRANSPORTED,  AND  TO  CHANGE 

THE  TAX  ON  OLEOMARGARINE. 


LIBRARY 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT    PRINTING    OFFICE. 

1901. 


NOTE. 

Where  reference  is  made  to  House  hearings  by  page  numbers,  see 
bottom  of  pages  of  the  House  hearings  for  the  page  numbers  so 
mentioned. 


56TH  CONGRESS,  )  SENATE.  (  REPORT 

U  Session.       j  I  No.  2043. 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY 
PRODUCTS,  ETC. 


JANUARY  26,  1901. — Ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.    PROCTOR,   from   the   Committee   on  Agriculture   and  Forestry 
submitted  the  following 

REPORT,  WITH  THE  VIEWS  OF  THE  MINORITY. 

[To  accompany  H.  R.  3717.] 

The  Committee  on  Agriculture  and  Forestry,  to  whom  was  referred 
House  bill  3717,  known  as  the  Grout  bill,  and  entitled  "An  act  to  make 
oleomargarine  and  other  imitation  dairy  products  subject  to  the  laws 
of  the  State  or  Territory  into  which  they  are  transported,  and  to 
change  the  tax  on  oleomargarine,"  begs  leave  to  submit  the  following 
report  and  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill: 

This  bill  proposes  to  increase  the  tax  on  oleomargarine  colored  in 
semblance  of  butter  and  reduce  that  not  colored  in  imitation  of  butter 
to  the  mere  nominal  sum  of  a  quarter  of  a  cent  a  pound,  the  purpose 
being  to  encourage  the  sale  of  the  genuine  article,  and  to  discourage 
the  sale  of  the  imitation  article  and  to  protect  the  honest  producer, 
dealer,  and  consumer  of  both  butter  and  oleomargarine. 

So  far  as  the  identification  of  the  commodity  to  the  wholesaler  is  con- 
cerned, the  law  of  1886  has  been  successful.  So  far  as  the  identifica- 
tion of  the  commodity  to  the  consumer  is  concerned,  the  law  of  1886 
is  of  little  value,  the  evidence  being  that  a  very  large  proportion  of  the 
oleomargarine  manufactured  goes  to  the  consumer  finally  as  butter, 
either  as  a  purchaser  of  the  retailer  or  as  a  guest  at  a  hotel,  restaurant, 
or  boarding  house. 

Your  committee,  realizing  the  importance  of  the  questions  involved 
in  the  bill,  has  inquired  very  carefully  and  exhaustively  into  the  exist- 
ing conditions,  as  shown  by  the  report  of  the  testimony  before  the 
committee,  which  occupies  580  pages,  the  taking  of  which  was  begun 
December  19  last  and  occupied  the  attention  of  your  committee  much 
of  the  time  from  that  date  to  and  including1-  Januarv  16.  Your  commit- 


II  OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS. 

tee  can  conceive  of  no  interest  which  would  be  affected  that  was  not 
represented  at  the  hearings  and  does  not  see  how  an}Tthing  new  could 
have  been  presented  had  the  hearings  been -continued  indefinitely. 

It  apears  from  the  testimony  that  through  the  legislatures  of  32 
States,  with  four-fifths  of  the  population  of  the  United  States,  the  peo- 
ple have  expressed  their  disapproval  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  sem- 
blance of  butter;  that  those  who  have  been  charged  with  the  duty  of 
enforcing  the  State  laws  regarding  this  product  are  positive  in  the 
opinion  that  so  long  as  it  is  colored  in  imitation  of  butter  fraud  upon 
the  consumer,  if  not  upon  the  dealer,  can  not  be  prevented.  Your 
committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  such  fraud  is  actually  sanctioned  and 
defended  by  some  of  the  largest  manufacturers,  who  guarantee  their 
retailers  protection  in  case  of  prosecution  for  the  sale  of  oleomargarine 
in  contravention  of  State  laws. 

It  also  appeared,  and  it  was  not  denied  by  the  manufacturers  them- 
selves, that  they  do  not  feel  in  any  way  bound  to  respect  the  laws  of 
the  States  against  selling  oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of  butter, 
claiming  that  the}T  are  unconstitutional;  and  the  testimony-  revealed 
methods  by  which  such  laws  are  evaded  or  their  enforcement  defeated, 
despite  the  fact  that  such  laws  have  been  sustained  by  the  courts  of 
last  resort  in  the  States  and  also  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States. 

So  far  as  the  committee  has  been  able  to  ascertain,  this  measure  has 
the  approval  of  all  State  officials  and  food  commissioners  whose  duties 
are  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  regulating  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
oleomargarine. 

It  appears  to  be  unanimously  desired  by  the  farmers  of  the  country 
who  are  engaged  in  dairying,  and  has  the  earnest  approval  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  Agriculture,  who  appeared  before  the  committee  at  its 
request  and  who  has  made  an  exhaustive  study  of  the  question  from 
a  broad,  economic  point  of  view. 

Your  committee  has  listened  with  interest  to  the  representations  of 
the  live-stock  interests  and  the  cotton-seed  oil  manufacturers,  and  is 
unable  to  see  in  this  measure  anything  that  can  greatly  injure  either. 
The  Secretary  of  Agriculture  expressed  the  opinion  before  the  com- 
mittee that  the  dairy  cow  was  a  necessity  to  the  restoration  of  the 
exhausted  cotton  lands  of  the  South. 

We  have  heard  some  objections  to  this  measure  from  organized 
labor;  and  while  it  is  true  that  some  laboring  men  may,  as  represented, 
prefer,  as  a  matter  of  pride,  to  consume  oleomargarine  that  is  yellow 
instead  of  white,  yet  your  committee  believes  that  while  the  pride  of 
some  may  suffer  under  this  measure,  which  will  raise  the  tax  on  the 
colored  and  reduce  it  on  the  uncolored,  a  far  greater  number  are  now 
being  deceived  througn  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter  and  at  butter 
prices. 

Your  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  if  oleomargarine  is  the  whole- 
some and  nutritious  product  that  those  interested  in  its  manufacture 
and  sale  claim  it  to  be,  it  will  meet  with  a  ready  demand  in  its  natural 
color,  and  especially  as  the  tax  on  the  uncolored  product  is  by  this  bill 
reduced  from  2  cents  to  one-quarter  of  a  cent  per  pound. 

We  submit  herewith  the  report  on  this  measure  by  the  committee 
of  the  House  and  the  views  of  a  minority  of  that  body. 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS.  Ill 

[House  Report  No.  1854,  Fifty-sixth  Congress,  first  session.] 

The  Committee  on  Agriculture,  to  whom  was  referred  H.  R.  3717,  known  as  the 
Grout  bill,  "  To  make  oleomargarine  and  other  imitation  dairy  products  subject  to 
the  laws  of  the  State  or  Territory  into  which  they  are  transported  and  to  change  the 
tax  on  oleomargarine,"  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  report  and  recommend  the 
passage  of  the  bill: 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  people  have  ample  cause  for  alarm  at  the  tremen- 
dous illegal  growth  of  the  oleomargarine  traffic  in  this  country  during  the  past  few 
years,  which  now  appears  to  have  reached  proportions  beyond  the  power  of  the 
States  to  successfully  regulate  or  control,  and  the  present  Federal  laws  are  apparently 
altogether  inadequate  for  the  emergency. 

After  carefully  weighing  the  evidence  and  suggestions  offered  for  remedies  for  the 
regulation  of  this  traffic  we  are  constrained  to  hold  that  the  provisions  of  H.  R..  3717 
offer  the  best  practical  solution  of  the  difficulty. 

We  believe  that  the  States  should  be  protected  in  their  rights  to  regulate  their 
internal  affairs  to  the  fullest  extent  in  relation  to  articles  of  food  which  have  been 
adjudged  adulterated  or  of  a  deceitful  character,  and  we  do  not  think  that  the  inter- 
state-commerce law  of  the  Government  should  protect  a  deceitful  imitation  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  State's  laws,  even  if  the  article  in  question  is  in  the  original  pack- 
age and  is  shipped  from  an  outsider  into  the  State  in  such  package. 

We  find  that  the  very  foundation  and  cause  of  the  enormous  amount  of  fraud  and 
illegal  selling  of  oleomargarine  is  in  the  great  profits  which  are  derived  from  the  sale 
of  the  imitation  because  of  its  absolute  counterfeit  of  butter,  which  enables  unscru- 
pulous dealers  to  impose  upon  unsuspecting  customers.  These  profits  are  sufficiently 
large  to  cause  the  retailer  to  run  the  chances  of  detection  and  prosecution;  and  they 
are  further  emboldened  and  encouraged  through  the  guaranties  of  the  manufacturers 
of  protection  against  prosecutions  under  the  State  laws. 

Thirty-two  States,  having  four-fifths  of  the  entire  population  of  the  United  States, 
absolutely  forbid  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  to  resemble 
butter.  These  laws  have  been  upheld  in  the  higher  courts  without  a  single  excep- 
tion, and  the  question  has  twice  been  passed  upon  favorably  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States.  Therefore,  the  policy  of  a  very  large  majority  of  bur  people 
is  plainly  against  the  existence  of  the  article  in  such  counterfeit  form. 

The  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  upon  oleomargarine  colored  to  resemble  butter  will 
not  deprive  the  manufacturers  and  dealers  or  consumers  of  any  great  amount  of  legal 
right  they  now  possess.  Four-fifths  of  the  colored  article  made  is  sold  illegally  now, 
as  indicated  by  the  reports  of  the  Treasury  Department,  and  the  only  effect  of  this 
tax,  even  were  it  prohibitive  upon  this  class  of  oleomargarine,  would  be  to  prevent 
the  manufacture  of  an  article  the  sale  of  which  is  contrary  to  the  laws  of  32  States 
of  the  Union.  This  tax  will  bring  the  cost  of  the  colored  article  up  to  a  figure  that 
will  take  from  it  the  possibility  for  the  large  profits  which  have  been  the  incentive 
to  violate  the  laws  of  the  State  and  Government  and  defraud  innocent  purchasers, 
while  the  reduction  of  the  tax  on  oleomargarine  in  its  natural  color  from  2  cents  to 
one-fourth  cent  per  pound  will  make  it  possible  for  the  man  who  really  desires  to 
consume  oleomargarine  to  procure  it  at  a  much  lower  cost  than  heretofore,  the  only 
difference  being  that  it  will  not  contain  coloring  matter,  which  not  even  the  oppo- 
nents of  this  measure  claim  contributes  anything  to  its  palatableness  or  nutritive 
value. 

We  believe  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  will  continue  under  this 
measure,  and  that  those  who  desire  a  cheap  substitute  for  butter  will  purchase  the 
uncolored  article.  The  only  difference  is  that  the  counterfeit  article,  colored  in  imi- 
tation of  butter,  will  no  longer  be  accessible  to  hotel  keepers,  restaurant  keepers,  and 
boarding-house  proprietors  at  such  prices  as  will  be  an  inducement  for  them  to  deceive 
their  guests,  as  is  now,  we  believe,  absolutely  universal  wrhere  it  is  served,  and  thus 
another  class  of  consumers,  who  have  been  subject  to  imposition  for  more  than  twenty 
years,  will  be  able  to  know  whether  they  are  eating  butter  fat  or  hog  fat  when  they 
spread  their  bread.  If  colored  oleomargarine  is  served  it  will  be  because  it  is  better 
and  not  because  it  is  cheaper  than  butter. 

_  Serious  conditions  require  drastic  measures,  and  it  certainly  appears  from  the  tes- 
timony of  those  representing  the  producers  of  butter,  as  well  as  from  the  admissions 
of  the  witnesses  for  the  other  side,  that  those  who  are  engaged  in  this  oleomargarine 
traffic  have  absolutely  no  regard  for  State  laws,  and  regard  the  public  as  their  legiti- 
mate victim,  in  whose  behalf  they  resent  the  interference  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment. The  continued  existence  of  such  a  condition  we  can  not  but  believe  furnishes 
a  demoralizing  example  to  our  people  in  trade,  who  are  being  tutored  by  this  oleo- 
margarine interest  in  the  art  of  evasion  and  defiance  of  the  legally  constituted 
authorities. 


IV 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER   IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS. 


APPENDIX. 


The  population  of  the  States  which  have  passed  laws  forbidding  the  sale  of  oleo- 
argarine  colored  in  semblance  of  butter,  as  shown  by  the  census  of  1890,  is  as 


margarine 
follows: 

Population. 

New  York 5,997,853 

Pennsylvania 5,228,014 

Illinois 3,826,351 

Ohio 3,672,316 

Missouri 2, 679, 184 

Massachusetts 2,  238,  943 

Michigan 2, 093,  889 

Iowa 1, 911,  896 

Kentucky 1,  858,  635 

Georgia.' 1,  837,  353 

Tennessee 1,  766,  518 

Wisconsin 1,  686,  880 

Virginia 1,655,980 

Alabama 1,  513,  017 

New  Jersey 1, 444,  933 

Minnesota 1, 301,  826 

California 1,208,130 


Population. 

South  Carolina 1, 151, 149 

Nebraska 1, 058,  910 

Maryland 1,  042,  390 


West  Virginia. 

Connecticut 

Maine 

Colorado 

New  Hampshire. 

AVashington 

Oregon 

Vermont 

South  Dakota  . . . 

Utah 

North  Dakota . . . 
Delaware  . . 


762, 794 
746,  253 
661,  086 
412, 198 
376,  530 
349,  390 
313,  767 
332,  442 
328,  808 
207,  905 
182,  711 
168, 493 


Total 50,117,440 


The  States  and  Territories  which  have  not  passed  laws  forbidding  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine colored  in  semblance  of  butter  are: 


Population. 

Texas 2,235,523 

Indiana 2, 192,  404 

North  Carolina 1, 617,  947 

Kansas 1, 427,  096 

Mississippi 1,  289,  700 

Arkansas 1, 128, 179 

Louisiana 1, 118,  587 

Florida 321,  422 

Rhode  Island 345,  506 

District  of  Columbia 230,  392 


New  Mexico 

Montana 

Idaho  

Oklahoma  .. 
Wyoming... 
Arizona  .... 
Nevada . . 


Population. 

153, 593 

132, 156 

84,  385 

61, 834 

60,  705 

59, 620 

45,  761 


Total 12,604,790 


VIEW*  OF  THE  MINORITY. 

The  minority  of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
beg  leave  to  submit  the  accompanying  bill,  which  we  offer  as  a  substitute  for  H.  R. 
3717,  known  as  the  Grout  bill. 

We  first  wish  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  House  proof  positive  that  oleomar- 
garine is  a  wholesome  and  nutritious  article  of  food,  and  is  therefore  entitled  to  a 
legitimate  place  in  the  commerce  of  our  country.  In  substantiation  of  this  statement 
we  beg  to  submit  the  following  testimony  taken  before  the  committee: 

OPINIONS   OF   LEADING   SCIENTISTS. 

Prof.  C.  F.  Chandler,  professor  of  chemistry  at  Columbia  College,  New  York,  says: 
"I  have  studied  the  question  of  its  use  as  food,  in  comparison  with  the  ordinary  but- 
ter made  from  cream,  and  have  satisfied  myself  that  it  is  quite  as  valuable  as  the  but- 
ter from  the  cow.  The  product  is  palatable  and  wholesome,  and  I  regard  it  as  a  most 
valuable  article  of  food." 

Prof.  George  F.  Barker,  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  says:  "Butterine  is,  in 
my  opinion,  quite  as  valuable  as  a  nutritive  agent  as  butter  itself.  It  is  perfectly 
wholesome,  and  is  desirable  as  an  article  of  food.  I  can  see  no  reason  why  but- 
terine  should  not  be  an  entirely  satisfactory  equivalent  for  ordinary  butter,  whether 
considered  from  the  physiological  or  commercial  standpoint." 

Prof.  Henry  Morton,  of  the  Stevens  Institute  of  Technology,  New  Jersey,  says:  "I 
am  able  to  say  with  confidence  that  it  contains  nothing  whatever  which  is  injurious 
as  an  article  of  diet,  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  essentially  identical  with  the  best  fresh 
butter,  and  is  superior  to  much  of  the  butter  made  from  cream  alone  which  is  found 
in  the  market.  The  conditions  of  its  manufacture  involve  a  degree  of  cleanliness  and 
consequent  purity  in  the  product  such  as  are  by  no  means  necessarily  or  generally 
attained  in  the  ordinary  making  of  butter  from  cream." 

Prof.  S.  W.  Johnson,  director  of  the  Connecticut  Agricultural  Experiment  Station, 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION   DAIRY    PRODUCTS.  V 

and  professor  of  agricultural  chemistry  in  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  says:  "It  is  a 
product  that  is  entirely  attractive  and  wholesome  as  food,  and  one  that  is  for  all  ordi- 
nary and  culinary  purposes  the  full  equivalent  of  good  butter  made  from  cream.  I 
regard  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  as  a  legitimate  and  beneficent  industry." 

Prof.  S.  C.  Caldwell,  of  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  says:  "While  not  equal 
to  fine  butter  in  respect  to  flavor,  it  nevertheless  contains  all  the  essential  ingredients 
of  butter,  and  since  it_  contains  a  smaller  proportion  of  volatile  fats  than  is  found  in 
genuine  butter,  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  less  liable  to  become  rancid.  It  can  not  enter 
into  competition  with  fine  butter,  but  so  far  as  it  may  serve  to  drive  poor  butter  out 
of  the  market,  its  manufacture  will  be  a  public  benefit." 

Prof.  C.  A.  Goessmann,  of  Amherst  Agricultural  College,  says:  "Oleomargarine 
butter  compares  in  general  appearance  and  in  taste  very  favorably  with  the  average 
quality  of  the  better  kinds  of  dairy  butter  in  our  markets.  In  its  composition  it 
resembles  that  of  ordinary  dairy  butter,  and  in  its  keeping  quality,  under  corresponding 
circumstances,  I  believe  it  will  surpass  the  former,  for  it  contains  a  smaller  percent- 
age of  those  constituents  which,  in  the  main,  cause  the  well-known  rancid  taste  and 
odor  of  a  stored  butter." 

Prof.  Charles  P.  Williams,  professor  in  the  Missouri  State  University,  says:  "It  is 
a  pure  and  wholesome  article  of  food,  and  in  this  respect,  as  well  as  in  respect  to  its 
chemical  composition,  fully  the  equivalent  of  the  best  quality  of  dairy  butter." 

Prof.  J.  W.  8.  Arnold,  professor  of  physiology  in  the  University  of  New  York,  says: 
"I  consider  that  each  and  every  article  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine 
butter  is  perfectly  pure  and  wholesome;  that  oleomargarine  butter  differs  in  no  essen- 
tial manner  from  butter  made  from  cream.  In  fact  oleomargarine  butter  possesses 
the  advantage  over  natural  butter  of  not  decomposing  so  readily,  as  it  contains  fewer 
volatile  fats.  In  my  opinion  oleomargarine  is  to  be  considered  a  great  discovery,  a 
blessing  for  the  poor,  and  in  every  way  a  perfectly  pure,  wholesome,  and  palatable 
article  of  food." 

Prof.  W.  0.  Atwater,  director  of  the  United  States  Government  Agricultural  Exper- 
iment Station  at  Washington,  says:  "  It  contains  essentially  the  same  ingredients  as 
natural  butter  from  cow's  milk.  It  is  perfectly  wholesome  and  healthy  and  has  a 
high  nutritious  value." 

Prof.  Henry  E.  Alvord,  formerly  of  the  Massachusetts  Agricultural  College,  and 
president  of  the  Maryland  College  of  Agriculture,  and  now  chief  of  the  Dairy  Division 
of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  one  of  the  best  butter  makers 
in  the  country,  says:  "The  great  bulk  of  butterine  and  its  kindred  products  is  as 
wholesome,  cleaner,  and  in  many  respects  better,  than  the  low  grades  of  butter  of 
which  so  much  reaches  the  market." 

Prof.  Paul  Schweitzer,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D.,  professor  of  chemistry,  Missouri  State  Uni- 
versity, says:  "As  a  result  of  my  examination,  made  both  with  the  microscope  and 
the  delicate  chemical  tests  applicable  to  such  cases,  I  pronounce  butterine  to  be 
wholly  and  unequivocally  free  from  any  deleterious  or  in  the  least  objectionable  sub- 
stances. Carefully  made  physiological  experiments  reveal  no  difference  whatever  in 
the  palatability  and  digestibility  between  butterine  and  butter." 

Professor  Wiley,  chief  of  the  Division  of  Chemistry  of  the  United  States  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture,  also  appeared  before  the  committee  and  testified  to  the  nutritive 
and  wholesome  qualities  of  oleomargarine. 

The  Committee  on  Manufactures  of  the  United  States  Senate,  in  a  report  dated 
February  28,  1900,  finds,  from  the  evidence  before  it,  "that  the  product  known  com- 
mercially as  oleomargarine  is  healthful  and  nutritious." 

Judge  Hughes,  of  the  Federal  court  of  Virginia,  in  a  decision,  says: 

"It  is  a  fact  of  common  knowledge  that  oleomargarine  has  been  subjected  to  the 
severest  scientific  scrutiny,  and  has  been  adopted  by  every  leading  government  in 
Europe  as  well  as  America  for  use  by  their  armies  and  navies.  Though  not  origi- 
nally invented  by  us,  it  is  a  gift  of  American  enterprise  and  progressive  invention  to 
the  world.  It  has  become  one  of  the  conspicuous  articles  of  interstate  commerce 
and  furnishes  a  large  income  to  the  General  Government  annually." 

Believing  that  this  testimony  establishes  beyond  controversy  that  oleomargarine 
is  a  nutritious  and  wholesome  article  of  food,  the  main  question  to  be  considered  is 
the  complaint  that  fraud  is  practiced  in  its  sale. 

The  only  just  complaint  (indeed  the  only  complaint)  against  the  existing  oleomar- 
garine law  consists  in  the  facility  with  which  the  retail  dealer,  in  selling  from  the 
original  or  wholesale  package  and  substituting  a  new  and  unmarked  wrapper,  may 
violate  the  law.  There  is  nothing  in  H.  E.  3717  (known  as  the  Grout  bill)  which 
would  decrease  the  temptation  or  increase  the  difficulty  of  such  violations.  On  the 
contrary,  the  increased  taxation  would  either  be  fraudulently  evaded  or  else  would 
force  the  honest  manufacturer  out  of  business.  H.  R.  3717  merely  increases  taxation 
without  providing  any  new  or  additional  penalties  or  any  new  methods  to  prevent 
the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter,  either  in  its  colored  of  uncolored  state.  In  fact, 


VI  OLEOMARGARINE   AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS. 

the  radical  advocates  of  the  Grout  bill  do  not  seek  this  end,  as  they  have  declared 
in  their  testimony  before  the  committee  and  in  declarations  elsewhere  that  their  sole 
intention  is  to  absolutely  crush  out  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  and  eliminate 
it  as  a  food  product. 

In  substantiation  of  this  assertion  we  quote  the  following: 

Mr.  Adams,  pure  food  commissioner  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  in  his  testimony 
before  the  committee  on  March  7,  1900,  said: 

' '  There  is  no  use  beating  about  the  bush  in  this  matter.  We  want  to  pass  this 
law  and  drive  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  out  of  the  business." 

Charles  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Union,  in  a  letter  to  the  Vir- 
ginia dairymen,  dated  May  18,  1900,  writes: 

"  Now  is  the  time  for  you  to  clip  the  fangs  of  the  mighty  octopus  of  the  oleomar- 
garine manufacturers,  who  are  ruining  the  dairy  interests  of  this  country  by  manu- 
facturing and  selling  in  defiance  of  law  a  spurious  article  in  imitation  01  pure  butter. 
We  have  a  remedy  almost  in  grasp  which  will  eliminate  the  manufacture  of  this 
article  from  the  food-product  list.  The  Grout  bill,  now  pending  in  the  Agricultural 
Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  Congress,  meets  the  demand." 

W.  D.  Hoard,  ex-governor  of  AVisconsin  and  president  of  the  National  Dairy  Union, 
stated  in  his  testimony  before  the  committee  on  March  7,  1900,  as  follows: 

"To  give  added  force  to  the  first  section  of  the  bill,  it  is  provided  in  the  second  sec- 
tion that  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  shall  be  imposed  on  all  oleomargarine  in  the  color 
or  semblance  of  butter.  In  plain  words,  this  is  repressive  taxation." 

In  view  of  this  testimony  the  minority  believe  they  are  justified  in  claiming  that 
the  Grout  bill,  if  enacted  into  law,  would  destroy  the  business  of  the  legitimate  oleo- 
margarine manufacturers.  In  other  words,  Congress  is  being  asked  to  ruin  one  indus- 
try to  benefit  another;  and  this,  in  the  opinion  of  the  minority,  is  a  thing  Congress 
ought  not  to  do.  The  minority  believe  it  to  be  class  legislation  of  the  most  pro- 
nounced kind  and  would  establish  a  precedent  which,  if  allowed,  would  create 
monopolies,  destroy  competition,  and  militate  against  the  public  good. 

The  substitute  bill  offered  by  the  minority  would,  in  our  opinion,  eliminate  all 
possibility  of  fraud,  and  would  compel  the  manufacturers  of  and  dealers  in  oleo- 
margarine to  sell  it  for  what  it  really  is  and  not  for  butter.  The  substitute  offered 
is  practically  an  amendment  to  section  3  and  6  of  the  existing  oleomargarine  law. 
The  licenses  for  manufacture  and  sale  of  this  article  are  not  changed,  and  are  as 
follows:  Manufacturers,  $600  per  annum;  Avholesale  dealers,  $480  per  annum;  retail- 
ers, $48  per  annum,  while  the  penalties  imposed  for  violations  of  the  law  are 
materially  increased.  We  quote  in  full  section  2  of  the  substitute  bill,  and  ask  for  it 
the  careful  and  thoughtful  consideration  of  the  House,  believing  that  it  is  just  and 
fair  to  all  the  interests  involved: 

"SEC.  2.  That  all  oleomargarine  shall  be  put  up  by  the  manufacturer  for  sale  in 
packages  of  one  and  two  pounds,  respectively,  and  in  no  other  or  larger  or  smaller 
package;  and  upon  every  print,  brick,  roll,  or  lump  of  oleomargarine,  before  being 
so  put  up  for  sale  or  removal  from  the  factory,  there  shall  be  impressed  by  the  man- 
ufacturer the  word  'oleomargarine'  in  sunken  letters,  the  size  of  which  shall  be 
prescribed  by  regulations  made  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  and 
approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  that  every  such  print,  brick,  roll,  or 
lump  of  oleomargarine  shall  first  be  wrapped  with  paper  wrapper  with  the  word 
'  oleomargarine '  printed  thereon  in  distinct  letters,  and  said  wrapper  shall  also  bear 
the  name  of  the  manufacturer,  and  then  shall  be  put  by  the  manufacturer  thereof  in 
such  wooden  or  paper  packages  or  in  such  wrappers,  with  the  word  '  oleomargarine r 
printed  thereon  in  distinct  letters,  and  marked,  stamped,  and  branded  in  such  man- 
ner as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  shall  prescribe,  and  the  internal-revenue  stamp  shall  be  affixed  so  as  to 
surround  the  outer  wrapper  of  each  one  and  two  pound  package:  Proiided,  That  any 
number  of  such  original  stamped  packages  may  be  put  up  by  the  manufacturer  in 
crates  or  boxes,  on  the  outside  of  which  shall  be  marked  the  word  'oleomargarine,' 
with  such  other  marks  and  brands  as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  shall, 
by  regulations  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  prescribe. 

"  Retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine  shall  sell  only  the  original  package  to  which  the 
tax-paid  stamp  is  affixed. 

"Every  person  who  knowingly  sells  or  offers  for  sale,  or  delivers  or  offers  to 
deliver,  any  oleomargarine  otherwise  than  as  provided  by  this  act  or  contrary  to  the 
regulations  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  made  in  pursuance  hereof,  or 
who  packs  in  any  package  any  oleomargarine  in  any  manner  contrary  to  law,  or  who 
shall  sell  or  offer  for  sale  as  butter  any  oleomargarine,  colored  or  uncolored,  or  who 
falsely  brands  any  package,  or  affixes  a  stamp  on  any  package  denoting  a  less  amount 
of  tax  than  that  required  by  law,  shall  be  fined  for  the  first  offense  not  less  than  one 
hundred  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars  and  be  imprisoned  not  less  than  thirty 
days  nor  more  than  six  months;  and  for  the  second  and  every  subsequent  offense 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS.  VII 

shall  be  fined  not  less  than  two  hundred  nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars  and  be 
imprisoned  not  less  than  sixty  days  nor  more  than  two  years." 

One  of  the  claims  made  by  the  friends  of  the  Grout  bill  is  that  it  will  protect  the 
interests  of  the  farmer.  We  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  every  ingredient  that 
enters  into  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  is  as  much  a  product  of  the  farm  as  is 
butter,  and  that  such  ingredients  are  made  more  valuable  on  account  of  their  use  in 
the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine. 

Your  committee  has  had  before  it  representatives  of  both  the  cattle  and  hog  raisers 
of  the  country,  and  also  representatives  of  the  cotton  industry,  and  they  are  unani- 
mous in  their  opinion  that  their  business  will  be  materially  injured  and  the  price  of 
their  product  lowered  by  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill  and  the  destruction  of  the 
oleomargarine  industry. 

The  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  does  not  interfere  with  the  growth  and 
prosperity  of  the  butter  industry.  Statistics  show  a  much  greater  percentage  in  the 
increase  of  the  production  of  butter  than  in  the  production  of  oleomargarine.  Though 
similar  in  ingredients,  they  are  not  strictly  competing,  as  the  oleomargarine  is  prac- 
tically all  bought  by  the  poorer  class  of  our  people. 

In  justification  of  this  statement  we  have  received  a  large  number  of  petitions  from 
the  labor  organizations  of  our  country  protesting  against  the  passage  of  this  bill  for 
the  above-given  reasons. 

It  being  possible  to  keep  oleomargarine  in  a  sweet  and  sound  condition  much 
longer  than  butter,  it  is  also  used  extensively  in  the  mining  and  lumber  camps,  on 
exploring  and  hunting  expeditions,  on  ships  at  sea,  and  by  armies  in  the  field. 

The  claim  made  by  the  friends  of  the  Grout  bill  that  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
oleomargarine  has  greatly  depreciated  the  price  of  butter  will  not  obtain  when  it  is 
known  that  there  is  now  manufactured  in  the  United  States  nearly  2,000,000,000 
pounds  of  butter  annually,  and  it  is  positively  known  that  there  only  were  83,000,000 
pounds  of  oleomargarine'  manufactured  last  year,  which  shows  that  the  amount  of 
oleomargarine  produced  is  about  4  per  cent  of  the  amount  of  butter  produced. 
Therefore,  the  argument  that  oleomargarine  in  any  material  sense  controls  the  price 
of  butter  is  not  justified  by  the  facts. 

The  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  have  in  no  way  depreciated  the  price 
of  butter,  as  more  butter  is  being  sold  at  a  higher  price  in  this  country  than  ever 
before,  as  shown  by  testimony. 

It  is  a  suggestive" fact  that  those  sections  of  our  country  which  are  most  exclusively 
devoted  to  the  dairy  interests  are  blessed  with  the  greatest  prosperity,  as  brought  out 
in  the  testimony  of  ex-Governor  Hoard,  of  Wisconsin,  before  our  committee,  who 
said  that  a  few  years  ago  land  was  worth  only  $15  an  acre  in  that  State,  but  as  the 
State  began  to  be  devoted  more  exclusively  to  the  dairy  interests  land  had  rapidly 
appreciated  in  price,  and  that  farmers  had  gotten  out  of  debt,  had  paid  their  mort- 
gages, and  the  land  is  now  worth  the  sum  of  $80  per  acre,  this  price  averaging  much 
higher  than  agricultural  lands  in  other  parts  of  the  country. 

In  conclusion,  the  members  of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture  who  have  joined  in 
this  minority  report  beg  to  assure  the  House  and  the  country  in  the  most  solemn  man- 
ner possible  that  it  has  been  their  earnest  intention,  and  is'now  their  determination, 
to  do  everything  possible  to  be  done  to  enforce  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  oleomar- 
garine and  to  prevent  its  sale  as  butter.  To  prevent  fraud  and  not  to  stamp  out  an 
industry  has  been  and  is  our  purpose.  We  believe  that  it  ought  to  be  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  all  legislation  and  the  sole  motive  of  all  just  men. 

J.  W.  WADSWORTH. 
WM.  LORIMER. 
W.  J.  BAILEY. 
G.  H.  WHITE. 
JOHN  S.  WILLIAMS. 
J.  WM.  STOKES. 
H.  D.  ALLEN. 


[Substitute  for  H.  R.  3717.] 

A  BILL  To  amend  sectipns  three  and  six  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  defining  butter,  also  imposing  a 
tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale,  importation,  and  exportation  of  oleomargarine," 
approved  August  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-six,  and  also  to  define  manufacturers  and 
dealers  and  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  special  taxes  by  them. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  sections  three  and  six  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  defin- 
ing butter,  also  imposing  a  tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale,  importa- 
tion, and  exportation  of  oleomargarine,"  approved  August  second,  eighteen  hundred 
and  eighty-six,  be  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

"SEC.  1.  That  special  tax  on  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  shall  be 


VIII         OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS. 

imposed  as  follows:  Manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  shall  pay  six  hundred  dollars 
per  annum.  Every  person  who  manufactures  oleomargarine  for  sale  shall  be  deemed 
a  manufacturer  thereof. 

' '  Wholesale  dealers  in  oleomargarine  shall  pay  four  hundred  and  eighty  dollars 
per  annum.  Every  person  who  sells  or  offers  for  sale  oleomargarine  in  quantities 
greater  than  ten  pounds  at  a  time  shall  be  deemed  a  wholesale  dealer  therein;  but  a 
manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  who  has  given  the  required  bond  and  paid  the  required 
special  tax,  and  who  sells  oleomargarine  of  his  own  production  only  at  the  place  of 
its  manufacture  in  the  original  packages  to  which  the  tax-paid  stamps  are  affixed, 
shall  not  be  required  to  pay  the  special  tax  of  a  wholesale  dealer  on  account  of  such 
sales. 

" Retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine  shall  pay  forty-eight  dollars  per  annum.  Every 
person  who  sells  or  offers  for  sale  oleomargarine  in  quantities  not  greater  than  ten 
pounds  at  a  time  shall  be  regarded  as  a  retail  dealer  therein. 

"SEC.  2.  That  all  oleomargarine  shall  be  put  up  by  the  manufacturer  for  sale  in 
packages  of  one  and  twro  pounds,  respectively,  and  in  no  other  or  larger  or  smaller 
package;  and  upon  every  print,  brick,  roll,  or  lump  of  oleomargarine,  before  being 
so  put  up  for  sale  or  removal  from  the  factory,  there  shall  be  impressed  by  the 
manufacturer  the  word  'oleomargarine'  in  sunken  letters,  the  size  of  which  "shall 
be  prescribed  by  regulations  made  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  and 
approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  that  every  such  print,  brick,  roll,  or  lump 
of  oleomargarine  shall  first  be  wrapped  with  paper  wrapper  with  the  word  '  oleo- 
margarine' printed  thereon  in  distinct  letters,  and  said  wrapper  shall  also  bear  the 
name  of  the  manufacturer,  and  shall  then  be  put  by  the  manufacturer  thereof  in  such 
wooden  or  paper  packages  or  in  such  wrappers  and  marked,  stamped,  and  branded 
with  the  word  'oleomargarine'  printed  thereon  in  distinct  letters,  and  in  such  manner 
as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  shall  prescribe,  and  the  internal-revenue  stamp  shall  be  affixed  so  as  to 
surround  the  outer  wrapper  of  each  one  and  two  pound  package:  Provided,  That  any 
number  of  such  original  stamped  packages  may  be  put  up  by  the  manufacturer  in  crates 
or  boxes,  on  the  outside  of  which  shall  be  marked  the  word  '  oleomargarine, '  with 
such  other  marks  and  brands  as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  shall,  by 
regulations  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  prescribe. 

"Retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine  shall  sell  only  the  original  package  to  which  the 
tax-paid  stamp  is  affixed. 

"Every  person  who  knowingly  sells  or  offers  for  sale,  or  delivers  or  offers  to 
deliver,  any  oleomargarine  otherwise  than  as  provided  by  this  act  or  contrary  to  the 
regulations  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  made  in  pursuance  hereof,  or 
who  packs  in  any  package  any  oleomargarine  in  any  manner  contrary  to  law,  or  who 
shall  sell  or  offer  for  sale,  as  butter,  any  oleomargarine,  colored  or  uncolored,  or  who 
falsely  brands  any  package,  or  affixes  a  stamp  on  any  package  denoting  a  less  amount 
of  tax  than  that  required  by  law,  shall  be  fined  for  the  first  offense  not  less  than  one 
hundred  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars  and  be  imprisoned  not  less  than  thirty 
days  nor  more  than  six  months;  and  for  the  second  and  every  subsequent  offense 
shall  be  fined  not  less  than  two  hundred  nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars  and  be 
imprisoned  not  less  than  sixty  days  nor  more  than  two  years." 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MINORITY. 


The  minority  of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture  and  Forestry  beg 
leaye  to  submit  to  the  Senate  a  substitute  for  the  bill  H.  R.  3717,  with 
favorable  recommendation.  The  substitute  is  as  follows: 

[Substitute  for  H.  R.  3717.] 

A  BILL  to  amend  sections  three  and  six  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  denning  butter,  also  imposing  a 
tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale,  importation,  and  exportation  of  oleomargarine," 
approved  August  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-six,  and  also  to  define  manufacturers  and 
dealers  and  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  special  taxes  by  them. 

Be  it  enacted  by  tJie  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  sections  three  and  six  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  defining 
butter,  also  imposing  a  tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale,  importation, 
and  exportation  of  oleomargarine,"  approved  August  second,  eighteen  hundred  and 
eighty-six,  be  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

"SEC.  1.  That  special  tax  on  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  shall  be 
imposed  as  follows:  Manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  shall  pay  six  hundred  dollars 
per  annum.  Every  person  who  manufactures  oleomargarine  for  sale  shall  be  deemed 
a  manufacturer  thereof. 

"  Wholesale  dealers  in  oleomargarine  shall  pay  four  hundred  and  eighty  dollars 
per  annum.  Every  person  who  sells  or  offers  for  sale  oleomargarine  in  quantities 
greater  than  ten  pounds  at  a  time  shall  be  deemed  a  wholesale  dealer  therein;  but  a 
manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  who  has  given  the  required  bond  and  paid  the  required 
special  tax,  and  who  sells  oleomargarine  of  his  own  production  only  at  the  place  of 
its  manufacture  in  the  original  packages  to  which  the  tax-paid  stamps  are  affixed, 
shall  not  be  required  to  pay  the  special  tax  of  a  wholesale  dealer  on  account  of  such 
sales. 

' '  Retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine  shall  pay  forty-eight  dollars  per  annum.  Every 
person  who  sells  or  offers  for  sale  oleomargarine  in  quantities  not  greater  than  ten 
pounds  at  a  time  shall  be  regarded  as  a  retail  dealer  therein. 

' '  SEC.  2.  That  all  oleomargarine  shall  be  put  up  by  the  manufacturer  for  sale  in 
packages  of  one  and  two  pounds,  respectively,  and  in  no  other  or  larger  or  smaller 
package;  and  upon  every  print,  brick,  roll,  or  lump  of  oleomargarine,  before  being 
so  put  up  for  sale  or  removal  from  the  factory,  there  shall  be  impressed  by  the 
manufacturer  the  word  'oleomargarine'  in  sunken  letters,  the  size  of  which  shall 
be  prescribed  by  regulations  made  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  and 
approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  that  every  such  print,  brick,  roll,  or  lump 
of  oleomargarine  shall  first  be  wrapped  with  paper  wrapper  with  the  word  'oleo- 
margarine '  printed  thereon  in  distinct  letters,  and  said  wrapper  shall  also  bear  the 
name  of  the  manufacturer,  and  shall  then  be  put  by  the  manufacturer  thereof  in  such 
wooden  or  paper  packages  or  in  such  wrappers  and  marked,  stamped,  and  branded 
with  the  word  'oleomargarine'  printed  thereon  in  distinct  letters,  and  in  such  manner 
as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  shall  prescribe,  and  the  internal-revenue  stamp  shall  be  affixed  so  as  to 
surround  the  outer  wrapper  of  each  one  and  two  pound  package:  Provided,  That  any 
number  of  such  original  stamped  packages  maybe  put  up  by  the  manufacturer  in  crates 
or  boxes,  on  the  outside  of  which  shall  be  marked  the  word  'oleomargarine,'  with 
such  other  marks  and  brands  as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  shall,  by 
regulations  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  prescribe. 

"Retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine  shall  sell  only  the  original  package  to  which  the 
tax-paid  stamp  is  affixed. 

"Every  person  who  knowingly  sells  or  offers  for  sale,  or  delivers  or  offers  to 
deliver,  any  oleomargarine  otherwise  than  as  provided  by  this  act  or  contrary  to  the 
regulations  ^of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  made  in  pursuance  hereof,  or 
who  packs  in  any  package  any  oleomargarine  in  any  manner  contrary  to  law,  or  who 
shall  sell  or  offer  for  sale,  as  butter,  any  oleomargarine,  colored  or  uncolored,  or  who 

IX 


X  OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS. 

falsely  brands  any  package,  or  affixes  a  stamp  on  any  package  denoting  a  less  amount 
of  tax  than  that  required  by  law.  shall  be  fined  for  the  first  offense  not  less  than  one 
hundred  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars  and  be  imprisoned  not  less  than  thirty 
days  nor  more  than  six  months;  and  for  the  second  and  every  subsequent  offense 
shall  be  fined  not  less  than  two  hundred  nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars  and  be 
imprisoned  not  less  than  sixty  days  nor  more  than  two  years." 

Oleomargarine  is  a  legitimate  article  ot  commerce. 

This  has  been  distinctively  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  In  the  case  of  Schollenberger  v.  Pennsylvania  (171  U.  S., 
30),  which  was  decided  May  26,  1898,  the  Supreme  Court  held  as  fol- 
lows: 

In  the  examination  of  this  subject  the  first  question  to  be  considered  is  whether 
oleomargarine  is  an  article  of  commerce.  No  affirmative  evidence  from  witnesses 
called  to  the  stand  and  speaking  directly  to  that  subject  is  found  in  the  record.  We 
must  determine  the  question  with  reference  to  those  facts  which  are  so  well  and 
universally  known  that  courts  will  take  notice  of  them  without  particular  proofs 
being  adduced  in  regard  to  them,  and  also  by  reference  to  those  dealings  of  the  com- 
mercial world  which  are  of  like  notoriety.  Any  legislation  of  Congress  upon  this 
subject  must,  of  course,  be  recognized  by  this  court  as  of  first  importance.  If  Con- 
gress has  affirmatively  pronounced  it  a  proper  subject  of  commerce,  we  should 
rightly  be  influenced  by  that  declaration. 

After  referring  to  the  act  of  Congress  of  August  2,  1886,  being  the 
law  now  in  force,  imposing  a  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound  on  oleomargarine, 
the  court  further  stated  as  follows: 

This  shows  that  Congress  at  the  time  of  its  passage  in  1886  recognized  the  article 
as  a  proper  subject  of  taxation,  and  as  one  which  was  the  subject  of  traffic  and  of 
exportation  to  foreign  countries  and  of  importation  from  such  countries.  Its  manu- 
facture was  recognized  as  a  lawful  pursuit,  and  taxation  was  levied  upon  the  manu- 
facturer of  the  article,  upon  the  wholesale  and  retail  dealers  therein,  and  also  upon 
the  article  itself. 

Concluding  upon  this  branch  of  the  case,  the  court  stated  as  follows: 

The  article  is  a  subject  of  export  and  is  largely  used  in  foreign  countries.  Upon 
all  these  facts  we  think  it  apparent  that  oleomargarine  has  become  a  proper  subject 
of  commerce  among  the  States  and  the  foreign  nations. 

Coloring  matter  is  used  both  in  the  making  of  butter  and  in  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  for  the  purpose  of  catering  to  the  tastes 
of  consumers  who  have  been  accustomed  to  a  generally  yellow  tint  in 
both  food  products. 

Neither  the  makers  of  butter  nor  the  manufacturers  of  oleomarga- 
rine can  claim  rightfully  any  exclusive  right  to  the  use  of  coloring  mat- 
ter in  their  respective  products.  Both  admit  that  coloring  matter  is 
used  for  the  reason  that  their  customers  prefer  an  article  of  a  yellowish 
tint.  If  consumers  preferred  the  article  white,  or  free  from  any  tint 
whatever,  the  makers  of  butter  and  the  manufacturers  of  oleomarga- 
rine could  just  as  easily,  and  even  more  easily,  respond  to  that  taste. 
The  question  for  the  lawmaking  power  to  consider  is  this:  Should  the 
law  interfere  in  a  case  of  this  kind  and  aid  the  makers  of  one  product 
and  injure  the  manufacturers  of  the  other? 

The  second  section  of  the  proposed  bill  imposes  a  tax  of  10  cents  a 
pound  upon  colored  oleomargarine,  or,  in  the  language  of  the  act,  "col- 
ored in  the  imitation  of  butter."  The  advocates  of  this  proposed  legis- 
lation admit  that  their  object  is  to  place  the  tax  on  oleomargarine  so 
high  that  it  can  not  be  placed  upon  the  markets  of  the  countiy  if  colored. 

It  is  the  universal  opinion  of  those  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine  that  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  upon  the  product  colored 
a  yellow  tint  will  destroy  that  industry,  for  the  reason,  which  expe- 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION   DAIRY    PRODUCTS.  XI 

rience  has  shown,  there  would  not  be  any  considerable  demand  for 
oleomargarine  in  an  uncolored  condition.  This  opinion  is  based  upon 
efforts  which  have  already  been  made  to  introduce  and  sell  the  uncol- 
ored product  in  States  where  anticolor  laws  now  prevail.  The  object, 
therefore,  of  imposing  this  excessive  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  upon 
colored  oleomargarine  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue,  but 
for  the  purpose  of  prohibiting  its  manufacture,  and  of  thus  destroying 
the  industry.  It  is  of  no  importance  that  the  proposed  legislation 
reduces  the  tax  on  uncolored  oleomargarine  from  2  cents  a  pound  to 
one-fourth  of  a  cent  a  pound.  Unless  there  is  reason  to  believe  there 
would  be  a  substantial  production  of  that  kind  of  article,  the  increase 
of  the  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  would,  in  all  probability,  prevent  any 
substantial  revenue  being  derived  from  its  manufacture. 

The  alleged  frauds  committed  in  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  are  not 
attributed  to  the  manufacturers,  but  to  the  retail  dealers  in  the  article. 

This  brings  us  to  the  consideration  of  the  question  whether  fraud  in 
the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter  can  better  be  prevented  by  the 
proposed  legislation,  which  imposes  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  upon 
its  manufacture,  or  by  the  enactment  of  more  stringent  regulations 
governing  the  retail  dealer. 

Under  the  present  law  the  retail  dealer  is  required  to  break  the 
original  package  in  which  he  receives  oleomargarine  from  the  manu- 
facturer. The  smallest  package  which  the  law  permits  the  manufac- 
turer to  place  upon  the  market  contains  10  pounds.  The  retail  dealer 
is  only  permitted  to  sell  from  the  manufacturer's  original  packages. 
If  he  desired  to  sell  in  10-pound  packages  or  over,  he  would  be  required 
to  take  out  a  wholesale  dealer's  license,  which  is  fixed  at  $480  a  year. 
This  makes  it  necessary  for  the  retailer  to  break  the  original  pack- 
age, and  it  is  conceded  that  whatever  frauds  may  be  committed  occur 
by  reason  of  this  fact. 

If  the  retail  dealer  desires  to  commit  a  fraud  upon  his  customer,  the 
opportunity  for  so  doing  is  thus  afforded.  If  legislation  can  be  enacted 
which  will  require  the  retail  dealer  to  sell  oleomargarine  in  the  origi- 
nal package  put  up  by  the  manufacturer  without  breaking  the  wrap- 
per or  the  internal-revenue  stamp  of  the  Government,  and  if  such 
wrappers  and  stamps  were  clearly  and  distinctly  marked  and  branded, 
under  regulations  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  the 
opportunity  to  commit  fraud  upon  the  customer  would  be  wholly 
eliminated  or  reduced  to  a  minimum.  This  opinion  is  entertained  by 
those  most  intimately  connected  with  the  manufacture  and  selling  of 
oleomargarine;  and  it  is  also  the  opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, given  in  his  statement  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Agricul- 
ture; and  also  the  opinion  of  ex- Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue, 
Mr.  Wilson,  given  in  his  statement  before  the  House  Committee  on 
Agriculture. 

Under  the  proposed  bill  the  temptation  to  fraud  on  the  part  of  the 
retail  dealer  would  be  largely  increased  from  the  fact  that  he  will  be 
enabled  to  buy  the  uncolored  oleomargarine,  on  which  one-fourth  of  a 
cent  per  pound  tax  is  imposed,  and  by  coloring  the  same  himself 
increase  the  value  of  his  product  9f  cents  per  pound,  for  the  reason 
that  he  could  sell  the  same  at  this  largely  increased  profit  for  either 
butter  or  oleomargarine. 

We  assume  that  the  lawmaking  power  of  the  Government  desires 
to  prevent  the  possibility  of  fraud  in  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  but- 


XII  OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY   PRODUCTS. 

ter  and  not  to  destroy  the  industry  itself.  We  therefore  recommend 
legislation  upon  the  subject  which  will  make  fraudulent  sales  as  near 
impossible  as  laws  can  provide. 

We  have  omitted  reference  heretofore  to  the  first  section  of  the 
pending  bill.  This  section  has  for  its  object  the  placing  of  oleomarga- 
rine under  the  police  laws  of  the  several  States,  notwithstanding  its 
introduction  into  a  State  in  the  original  package.  This  provision  is 
for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  effect  of  the  ruling  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  Schollenberger  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania, reported  in  171  U.  S.,  1-30.  The  opinion  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  that  case  was  to  the  effect  that  a  lawful  article  of  commerce 
€an  not  be  wholly  excluded  from  itnportion  into  a  State  from  another 
State  where  it  was  manufactured.  It  was  conceded  in  that  opinion 
that  a  State  has  power  to  regulate  the  introduction  of  any  article, 
including  a  food  product,  so  as  to  insure  purity  of  the  article  imported, 
but  that  such  police  power  does  not  include  the  total  exclusion  even  of 
an  article  of  food. 

The  States  may  provide  for  a  reasonable  inspection  of  all  food  prod- 
ucts imported  into  them,  but  the  object  of  this  legislation  must  be 
inspection  and  not  prohibition  of  the  traffic.  It  is  true  that  Congress, 
in  1890,  passed  an  act  which  placed  intoxicating  liquors  under  the 
police  power  of  the  States;  but  oleomargarine,  which  is  a  wholesome 
and  nutritious  food,  ought  not  to  be  treated  in  the  same  manner  that 
the  lawr  regards  intoxicating  liquors.  The  States  should  not  be  per- 
mitted by  Congress  to  interfere  in  its  sale,  and  especially  should  Con- 
gress refuse  to  place  the  article  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  States,  which 
might  exclude  its  manufacture  or  sale  entirely.  The  States  my  inspect 
oleomargarine  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  it  was  free  from 
adulterants  or  unwholesome  ingredients;  but  Congress  should  not 
recognize  the  right  of  a  State  to  exclude  it  from  importation  and  sale 
therein,  so  long  as  it  is  conceded  to  be  nutritious  as  an  article  of  food. 

The  proposed  bill  is  not  a  revenue  measure.  It  is  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  raising  revenue  or  reducing  surplus  revenue.  In  fact,  in  no 
sense  is  it  a  measure  resting  for  its  authority  upon  the  taxing  power 
of  the  Government.  Its  object  is  to  prevent  competition  between  two 
home  industries  by  building  up  the  one  and  destining  the  other. 
Such  use  of  the  taxing  power  of  the  Government  is  an  abuse  which 
should  not  be  encouraged  or  even  tolerated  for  a  moment.  The  prece- 
dent will  open  wide  the  door  for  all  manner  of  vexatious  schemes  and 
instigate  selfish  greed  to  demand  legislation  involving  every  conceiv- 
able interference  of  Government  with  private  interests.  It  is  an 
effort  to  so  frame  our  internal-revenue  laws  that  one  class  of  home 
producers  will  be  protected  from  competition  with  another  class  of 
home  producers.  While  our  Government  has  adopted  the  policy  of 
protecting  home  producers  against  foreign  producers  of  the  same 
kinds  of  articles,  there  can  be  no  excuse  or  justification  for  interfering 
among  our  own  citizens  by  aiding  one  industry  at  the  expense  and  to 
the  injury  or  destruction  of  another.  This  policy  would  tend  to 
destroy  all  benefits  which  consumers  receive  from  improved  processes 
of  production,  from  labor-saving  machinery,  and  from  the  results  of 
invention.  By  such  means  all  progress  could  be  arrested  and  mankind 
could  be  deprived  of  the  blessings  which  modern  science  and  genius 
are  securing  to  the  world. 

The  taxing  power  of  the  Government  can  not  be  used  for  any  object 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS.         XIII 

other  than  the  public  needs.  As  was  said  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  in  Loan  Association  v.  Topeka  (20  Wallace,  664), 
"To  lay  with  one  hand  the  power  of  the  Government  on  the  property 
of  the  citizen  and  with  the  other  to  bestow  it  upon  favored  individuals 
to  aid  private  enterprises  and  build  up  private  fortunes  is  none  the 
less  a  robbery  because  it  is  done  under  the  forms  of  law  and  is  called 
taxation."  While  under  the  proposed  bill  the  object  is  not  to  donate 
the  taxes  which  may  be  raised  to  aid  a  particular  industry,  yet  the 
imposition  of  the  tax  is  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  one  industry  to 
sell  its  products  free  from  competition  with  another,  and  thus  to  exact 
from  the  public  an  increased  price  for  the  product,  not  for  the  benefit 
of  the  public  Treasury  but  for  private  purposes  solely.  The  effect  upon 
the  people  is  the  same  in  both  cases.  As  was  stated  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  Topeka  case,  "there  can  be  no  lawful  tax  which 
is  not  laid  for  a  public  purpose."  This  doctrine  is  so  well  recognized 
that  it  is  unnecessary  to  produce  further  authorities  upon  the  subject. 
There  is  no  conflict  of  judicial  opinions;  all  are  in  harmony  with  the 
opinion  in  the  Topeka  case. 

The  proposed  bill  is  class  legislation  of  the  most  dangerous  character. 
It  is  not  demanded  by  any  existing  economic  conditions  in  this  country, 
and  its  passage  would  be  a  perversion  of  the  taxing  power  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  both  in  its  letter  and 
spirit. 

The  Hon.  Lyman  J.  Gage,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  was  invited 
to  come  before  the  committee  and  give  his  view  from  a  revenue  stand- 
point. The  following  is  a  part  of  his  testimony: 

Secretary  GAGE.  Of  course  I  only  feel  at  liberty  to  state  my  views  as  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  and  only  upon  that  part  of  the  bill  which  involves  the  question  of 
revenue.  I  might  have  personal  views  which  go  far  beyond  those;  but  you  would 
probably  not  care  much  about  them. 

There  is,  in  my  opinion,  an  objection  to  the  bill  011  either  theory.  If  it  is  a  rev- 
enue producer,  it  is  superfluous ;  we  do  not  need  it.  If  it  is  not  a  revenue  producer, 
then  the  title  of  the  bill  is  a  misnomer,  and  it  is  inoperative  in  the  name  of  revenue. 
It  seems  to  me  that  on  either  theory  there  are  serious  objections  to  it. 

I  think  that  covers  all  I  care  to  say  directly  on  the  subject. 
******* 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  can  you  tell  us  what  has  been  the  experi- 
ence, in  a  general  way,  of  your  Department  in  the  collection  of  the  revenue  on  oleo- 
margarine? You  know,  of  course,  that  there  is  now  a  2-cent  tax  on  it. 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  the  revenue  is  well  collected.  There  has  been 
considerable  discussion  of  that  subject  between  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Rev- 
enue (especially  Commissioner  Wilson)  and  myself,  at  different  times;  and  we  think 
we  are  cheated  to  some  extent,  as  we  are  in  all  revenue  matters. 

******* 

Senator  BATE.  Then  I  suppose  the  losses  in  oleomargarine  internal-revenue  col- 
lections are  about  on  a  par  with  the  losses  in  all  other  revenue  collections? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Well,  they  are  on  a  par  with  the  losses  in  most  of  the  revenue 
collections.  -  There  is  not  any  great  disparity. 

******* 

^  Senator  ALLEN.  Of  course  the  liquor  can  not  go  out  without  the  consent  of  the 
Government? 

Secretary  GAGE.  No,  sir;  but  the  tax  on  liquor  is  $1.10  a  gallon,  while  that  onbut- 
terine  is  2  cents  per  pound,  so  that  the  temptation  is  very  much  greater  in  the  one 
case  than  in  the  other. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  only  thing  with  which  you  are  concerned  is  the  tax? 

Secretary  GAGE.  That  is  the  main  thing,  of  course. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  remark  you  have  just  made,  Mr.  Secretary,  suggests  this 
question:  You  say  the  greater  the  tax  the  greater  the  incentive  to  fraud.  The  same 
rule  would  apply  here,  would  it  not? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Undoubtedly. 


XIV         OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY   PRODUCTS. 

Conflicting  interests  have  appeared  before  the  committee,  one  to 
demand  the  exercise  of  the  taxing  power  in  order  to  crush  a  rival  in 
the  business,  and  the  other  to  ask  that  it  be  permitted  to  continue  the 
manufacture  of  a  product,  wholesome  and  nutritious,  for  the  benefit  of 
the  thousands  who  are  unable,  by  their  poverty,  to  buy  butter.  The 
makers  of  oleomargarine,  of  dairy  butter,  of  creamery  butter,  of  the 
process  or  renovated  or  resurrected  butter,  have  all  appeared,  person- 
ally or  by  representatives,  to  insist  upon  their  interests  being  more  or 
less  protected  or  not  to  be  interfered  with.  The  producers  of  cotton- 
seed oil  and  the  live-stock  growers  have  also  been  represented,  asking 
that  there  be  no  further  interference  with  the  profits  of  their  several 
industries  for  the  benefit  of  the  dairy  men. 

In  the  consideration  of  this  subject  the  quarrels  of  the  respective 
manufacturers  and  parties  at  interest  as  to  the  profits  to  be  lost  or 
made  from  this  legislation  are  not  so  important  as  the  rights  of  the 
consumers  of  the  several  products.  There  are  millions  of  working 
people  who  are  not  producers  of  any  articles  of  food,  but  who  must  con- 
sume these  various  products.  They  can  not  all  of  them  buy  butter,  and, 
as  the  object  of  this  bill  is  evidently — from  the  expressions  of  the  lead- 
ing advocates  of  the  bill — to  exterminate  the  oleomargarine  industry, 
these  great  numbers  of  people  are  interested  that  such  nefarious  legis- 
lation should  be  defeated.  They  have  rights  as  well  as  the  manufac- 
turers of  butter  and  oleomargarine,  as  well  as  the  cotton-seed-oil  and  the 
live-stock  men,  and  it  is  the  cry  of  the  consumer,  the  cry  of  the  poor, 
that  should  have  the  first  attention  of  the  Senate. 

Below  is  appended  statements  by  accredited  representatives  of  the 
various  labor  organizations  of  the  country,  and  it  can  not  be  doubted 
that  they  speak  not  only  for  those  who  have  formally  accredited  them 
to  us,  but  also  for  the  vast  number  of  unrepresented  poor  people  whose 
interests  and  whose  wants  are  the  same. 

Mr.  Patrick  Dolan,  president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers'  Asso- 
ciation, testified  as  follows: 

Our  people,  Mr.  Chairman,  are  against  the  passage  of  the  measure.  I  represent 
over  40,000  miners  and  their  families,  and  I  know  from  the  sentiment  in  other  sec- 
tions of  the  country  to  which  I  go,  from  talking  to  people  who  are  interested  in  our 
organization,  that  they  do  not  want  to  be  deprived  of  the  ability  to  purchase  this 
wholesome  article  of  food.  If  it  is  not  made  in  a  wholesome  way,  then  they  do  not 
want  it;  but  if  it  is  just  as  good  to  them  to  spread  their  bread  with  as  35-cent  butter, 
they  do  want  it.  And  if  this  measure  passes  the  chances  are  that  butter  will  go  up 
to  50  cents,  and  poor  people  will  not  be  able  to  purchase  it  at  all. 

Mr.  John  Pierce,  representing  the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron 
and  Steel  Workers,  said: 

Colored  oleomargarine  is  at  present  retailed  at  from  12 J  to  20  cents  per  pound.  On 
investigation  I  am  satisfied  that  most  of  our  people  are  paj  ing  about  15  cents  per 
pound  for  it,  and  I  can  not  admit  that  those  who  buy  it  can  afford  to  pay  more.  I 
therefore  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  they  must  either  find  1 0  cents  per  pound  more 
to  pay  this  proposed  robbery  (for  I  can  not  dignify  it  by  the  name  of  tax)  or  buy  and 
eat  white  oleomargarine.  And  this  to  satisfy  the'greed  of  the  manufacturers  of  but- 
ter, wrho  think  that  white  oleomargarine  is  good  enough  for  those  who  can  not  afford 
to  pay  10  cents  additional  for  yellow,  or  the  20  cents  or  more  additional  for  creamery 
butter,  or  use  the  off  grades  of  butter  now  unsalable  as  food. 

Shall  those  thus  defrauded  of  what  should  be  their  inalienable  constitutional  right  be 
compelled  either  to  wear  in  their  homes,  on  their  very  tables,  flaunting  before  the  eyes 
of  their  children  and  of  those  who  may  share  their  board,  a  badge  of  their  poverty, 
and  an  emblem  of  their  inability  to  pay  a  legalized  robbery;  or,  on  the  other  hand, 
to  contribute  from  their  meager  board  to  the  hellish  greed^of  the  butter  interests,  of 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS.  XV 

whom  it  has  been  doubtless  truly  said  that  they  seek  to  follow  the  fashion  and  form 
a  trust,  but  are  deterred  by  the  existence  of  oleomargarine? 

#•  #  #•  *  *  *  #• 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  a  good  many  of  our  people  who  make  pretty  good 
wages,  and  of  course  they  can  buy  butter;  but  the  majority  of  them  make  small 
wages  now,  especially  since  we  got  into  this  trust  business.  I  know  there  are  lots  of 
men  who  dp  not  like  to  buy  this  white  oleomargarine,  because  it  looks  more  like  lard 
than  anything  else.  It  does  not  look  like  butter  at  all.  Why  should  they  be  made 
to  pay  10  cents  a  pound  more  because  they  get  butter  that  resembles  country  butter 
and  looks  a  little  better  on  the  table?  That  is  why  I  am  here  to  oppose  the  passage 
of  this  bill.  It  is  for  our  people  alone,  for  of  course  I  do  not  know  much  about  the 
butter  business  myself. 

Mr.  John  F.  McNamee,  vice-president  and  chairman  legislative  com- 
mittee Columbus  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Columbus,  Ohio,  said: 

I  bear  from  the  Central  Labor  Union  of  the  city  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  officially  known 
as  the  Columbus  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  credentials  which,  with  your  permis- 
sion, I  will  read  to  you: 

COLUMBUS,  OHIO,  January  5,  1901. 
To  whom  it  may  concern: 

This  is  to  certify  that  the  bearer,  Mr.  John  F.  McNamee,  vice-president  of  the 
Columbus  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  is  authorized  and  empowered  by  said  body 
to  exert  every  effort  and  use  all  honorable  means  in  accomplishing  the  defeat  of  a 
measure  now  pending  in  the  United  States  Senate,  and  known  as  the  Grout  bill,  the 
object  of  which  is  to  destroy  a  legitimate  industry  in  the  interest  of  its  competitors, 
said  Grout  bill  being  regarded  by  said  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly  and  all  it  repre- 
sents as  a  gross  injustice,  class  legislation,  an  invasion  of  citizenship  rights,  and  a 
serious  menace  to  the  best  interests  of  all  citizens,  particularly  those  in  moderate 
circumstances. 

Any  courtesies  extended  to  our  representative,  Mr.  McNamee,  wrill  be  fully  appre- 
ciated and  remembered  by  the  Columbus  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly. 

[SEAL.]  FRANK  B.  CAMERON,  President. 

WILLIAM  P.  HAUCK,  Secretary. 

This  letter  of  introduction  which  I  have  presented  represents  but  faintly  the  bitter 
antagonism  which  prevails  in  the  ranks  of  organized  labor  to  said  measure. 

•*  *  #  *#•##• 

The  members  of  organized  labor  are  thoroughly  familiar  with  all  of  the  phases  of 
this  bill.  They  speak  about  the  chemical  analyses  which  have  been  made  of  oleomar- 
garine by  official  chemists,  and  they  discuss  all  of  the  various  components  and  ingre- 
dients of  the  product  with  almost  as  much  familiarity  as  the  manufacturers  themselves 
are  capable  of  doing.  So  I  say  that  they  are  wide  awake  to  the  necessity,  in  the  pro- 
tection of  their  own  interests,  of  having  the  bill  defeated.  Not  only  that;  but  as 
patriotic  American  citizens  they  feel  deeply  the  indignity  to  which  our  legislative 
bodies  have  been  subjected  by  this  attempt  to  utilize  them  for  the  promotion  of  the 
interests  of  certain  individuals  and  corporations  in  violation  of  every  sense  of  right 
and  justice  and  at  the  expense  of  the  constitutional  prerogatives  of  other  citizens. 
They  feel  that  the  legislative  bodies  of  some  of  our  States  and  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  have  been  insulted  by  this  attempt  to  utilize  them  as  tools  for  the  pro- 
tection of  certain  interests  which  can  not  sustain  themselves  against  competitors. 

##'*.*  .     *        :  •-.*.,',•  r* 

Gentlemen,  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  our  citizens  in  moderate  circum- 
stances who  are  now  looking  to  the  United  States  Senate  for  protection  against  the  per- 
petration of  such  a  gross  injustice.  They  are  depending  absolutely  upon  that  sense  of 
justice,  that  sense  of  honor,  fair  play,  and  conservatism  which  has  always  character- 
ized this  body  to  protect  them  from  this,  one  of  the  most  culpable  violations  of  their 
rights  which  any  individual  or  combination  of  individuals  has  ever  attempted  to 
perpetrate  upon  the  American  public.  They  are  looking  to  this  body  with  the  firm 
nope  that  its  traditional  love  of  justice  will  prevail  and  predominate  in  this  crisis. 
Should  this  measure  become  a  law,  arising  from  the  mists  of  the  near  future  there 
will  come  a  monster  into  whose  insatiable  maw  the  contributions  of  our  citizens  shall 
continually  flow,  and  whose  appetite  shall  be  increased  by  all  attempts  at  its  gratifi- 
cation. This  monster  we  have  all,  in  our  apprehensive  conviction  of  the  certainty  of 
its  existence,  learned  to  regard  as  the  creamery  trust  of  the  future — the  combination 
of  creamery  interests  into  one  great  organization,  which  shall  monopolize  the  nianu- 


XVI         OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION   DAIRY    PRODUCTS. 

facture,  not  only  of  the  food  product  known  as  butter,  but  of  everything  of  that 
nature.  That  octopus  is  now  being  conceived.  If  the  United  State*  'Senate  should 
consent  to  the  passage  of  a  bill  so  outrageously  unjust  as  this  one  is,  then  its  birth 
will  have  been  accomplished. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 
Now,  we  can  not  see  that  there  is  any  justice  whatever  in  placing  any  tax  upon 

oleomargarine.  Heaven  knows  that  its  manufacture  is  already  sufficiently  restricted 
and  that  it  is  an  utter  impossibility,  under  the  stringent  laws  which  exist  in  alnio-t 
all  of  our  States  regulating  its  sale,'  for  any  deception  to  be  practiced  therein.  And  I 
want  to  assure  you,  gentlemen,  that  if  any  deception  in  this  connection  should  be 
attempted  in  pur  part  of  the  country  it  would  be,  and  often  is,  in  undertaking  to 
palm  off  inferior  butter  for  the  product  known  as  oleomargarine.  I  am  myself  a  con- 
stant consumer  of  the  article,  and  I  propose  that  it  shall  be  continually  used  by  my 
family,  because  I  know,  and  so  do  all  of  the  members  of  organized  labor  who  have 
listened  to  the  discussions  relative  to  this  product  in  their  various  unions,  that  it  is 
absolutely  free  from  all  disease  germs;  that  the  process  of  its  manufacture  is  such  as 
to  destroy  all  the  bacilli  of  tuberculosis  and  various  other  disease  germs  that  exist  in 
the  cow  and  through  the  medium  of  butter  consumption  are  conveyed  to  the  human 
system,  and  that  butter  is  not  subjected  to  any  process  which  will  eliminate  that 
element  of  danger. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  # 
Here  is  an  expression  from  one  of  the  largest  representative  labor  bodies  in  the 

United  States — the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor — and  here  is  what  they  say  relative 
to  the  tax: 

"We  believe  the  efforts  to  place  a  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  on  colored  butterine 
is  inspired  by  selfish  motives,  so  that  the  manufacturers  of  butter  may  charge  an 
unreasonable  price  for  their  commodity  and  enable  the  large  creameries  to  establish 
surely  and  securely  a  butter  trust  which  may  raise  prices  as  their  cupidity  may 
dictate." 

Here  is  another  expression: 

"  Justice  demands  equal  rights  for  both  manufacturers  of  butter  and  butterine 
both  products  having  equal  merit.     Any  adverse  legislation  against  either  must  be 
condemned. ' ' 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

This  is  from  the  Journeyman  Horseshoers'  Union: 

"We  feel  that  all  people  having  arrived  at  the  age  of  discretion  should  be  left  to 
exercise  their  own  choice  as  to  whether  they  shall  use  butter  or  oleomargarine: 
Therefore,  be  it 

il Resolved  by  Journeyman  Horseshoers'  Union  No.  40,  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  That  as  long 
as  butterine  is  colored  with  a  healthful  ingredient  said  coloring  should  be  encour- 
aged, as  it  improves  the  appearance  of  the  product;  that  we  do  most  emphatically 
condemn  the  persecution  being  waged  against  the  butterine  industry;  that  we  pro- 
test against  the  attempt  to  increase  the  tax  thereon,  and  that  copies  of  this  resolu- 
tion be  forwarded  to  every  Congressman,  with  the  request  that  they  each  and  every 
one  exert  the  most  strenuous  efforts  to  crushingly  defeat  once  and  for  all  any  and  all 
measures  providing  for  the  further  taxing  of  butterine." 

*****  -x-  * 

Here  is  something  from  the  Painters  and  Decorators  of  Cleveland,  Ohio.  It  speaks 
in  very  plain  language.  This  is  in  the  form  of  a  letter  signed  by  Mr.  Peter  Has- 
senpfliie,  442  Erie  street,  Cleveland,  president  of  said  union. 

"I  have  been  instructed  by  our  union,  containing  over  400  members,  to  write  and 
inform  you  that  we  are  unanimously  and  bitterly  opposed  to  the  bills  now  pending 
in  Congress  providing  for  the  persecution  of  the  butterine  industry.  As  you  doubt- 
less know,  there  are  laws  now  that  are  being  carefully  enforced  and  lived  up  to  that 
make  it  impossible  for  butterine  to  be  manufactured  and  sold  for  anything  else  but 
butterine,  and  it  is  the  unanimous  opinion  of  our  members  that  butterine  made 
according  to  these  laws  is  better  for  all  uses  than  three-fourths  of  the  butter  that 
can  be  bought.  It  won't  get  strong,  and  it  don't  come  from  feverish  cows  that  are 
full  of  disease  germs,  and  butter  frequently  does. 

"We  feel  this  way — that  if  butterine  is  wrong,  or  poison,  or  liable  to  injure  public 
health,  then  do  away  with  it  altogether;  but,  if  it  is  not  (and  years  of  experience  in 
using  it  have  taught  us  it  is  not)  then  why  persecute  the  industry  and  keep  passing 
laws  against  it?  Our  belief  is  that  this  is  kept  up  just  for  political  reasons,  and 
that  some  people  in  Congress  that  are  sworn  to  protect  the  rights  and  interests  of 
all  the  people  are  willing  to  increase  our  already  too  high  cost  ot  living  and  add  to 
our  taxes  just  to  catch  the  farmer  vote  and  increase  the  business  of  the  butter  trust 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER   IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS.        XVII 

or  trusts  (and  if  butterine  is  killed  they  will  soon  be  in  one),  and  make  them  a  pres- 
ent of  the  butter  market,  so  they  can  either  rob  the  people  or  make  them  go  without 
butter.  It  is  the  rankest  kind  of  injustice  to  kill  one  industry  that  is  right  and 
legitimate  in  order  to  accommodate  another.  We  want  butterine;  we  know  what 
it  is;  we  would  rather  have  it  than  butter,  and  it  is  an  outrage,  in  order  to  gratify 
the  people  who  make  butter,  that  we  should  have  to  go  without  it  and  pay  two 
prices  for  butter  which  we  are  compelled  by  law  to  eat,  and  which,  nine  cases  out  of 
ten,  is  not  fit  for  human  use.  It  is  getting  to  be  pretty  serious  when  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  is  asked  to  go  into  the  business  of  booming  certain  interests,  and 
for  their  accommodation  driving  their  competitors  out  of  existence  simply  because 
they  are  competitors,  and  for  no  other  reason  on  earth.  A  great  deal  is  being  said 
about  butterine  being  a  certain  color.  Now,  the  only  reason  that  a  kick  is  made  on 
that  color  is  because  it  helps  to  sell  that  commodity.  If  the  butterine  makers  were 
to  use  red  or  black  or  blue,  these  patriotic  statesmen,  and  others  so  solicitous  for  the 
people's  protection,  would  raise  no  objection,  because  that  would  make  the  same 
point  that  they  want  to  make  by  law,  and  that  is  to  hurt  its  sale  and  thereby  tickle  the 
farmers  and  advance  the  interests  of  the  creamery  trusts.  The  ingredient  used  in 
butterine  which  gives  it  its  color  has  been  proven  by  official  chemical  analysis  to  be 
a  natural  and  healthful  product.  As  there  is  no  reason  to  kill  butterine  but  because 
it  hurts  another  business,  then  why  not  do  away  with  these  hose  painting  machines 
because  they  hurt  our  business? 

"We  know  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  ask  this,  but  it  would  be  no  more  so  thae 
for  butter  makers  to  try,  as  they  are  doing,  to  drive  butterine  out  of  existence  becausn 
it  hurts  their  business. 

"I  will  close  by  saying  that  we  consider  any  further  legislation  by  Congress  tam- 
pering with  the  butterine  business  as  a  prostitution  of  that  dignified  body  to  the  greed 
and  avarice  of  certain  corporations  and  individuals,  at  our  sacrifice  and  that  of  the 
people  in  general  who  don't  own  farms  or  creamery  factories;  and  in  the  name  of 
my  union,  under  its  seal,  and  by  its  unanimous  instruction,  I  earnestly  request  you 
do  everything  you  can  to  defeat  all  measures  that  provide  for  the  increase  in  the  tax 
of  or  further  interference  with  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  butterine." 

#.-'*  \  #.'*•,'#..,.'»..••••» 

From  the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor: 

CHICAGO,  March  21,  1900. 
Hon.  WILLIAM  MCA.LEER. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  following  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Chicago 
Federation  of  Labor  at  regular  meeting,  Sunday,  February  4,  and  I  was  instructed  to 
forward  a  copy  of  same  to  you: 

1 '  Whereas  the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  is  deeply  interested  in  and  desires  to 
encourage  every  legitimate  industry  which  furnishes  employment  to  the  laboring 
classes;  and 

"Whereas  efforts  are  being  attempted  by  contemplated  legislation  at  Washington 
to  destroy  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine,  thereby  displacing  large  numbers 
of  the  industrial  element  and  preventing  them  from  gaining  a  livelihood  as  well  as 
the  use  of  an  article  of  food  which  has  received  the  highest  testimonials  of  every 
chemist  in  this  country  and  the  indorsement  of  every  standard  work  that  treats  on 
the  subject  of  hygiene;  and 

"Whereas  we  believe  the  efforts  to  place  a  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  on  colored 
butterine  is  inspired  by  selfish  motives,  so  that  the  manufacturers  of  butter  may 
charge  an  unreasonable  price  for  their  commodity  and  enable  the  large  creameries 
to  establish  surely  and  securely  a  butter  trust  which  may  raise  prices  as  their  cupidity 
may  dictate;  and 

"Whereas  justice  demands  equal  rights  for  both  manufacturers  of  butter  and  butter- 
ine, both  products  having  equal  merit,  any  adverse  legislation  against  either  must 
be  condemned;  and 

"Whereas  the  late  published  reports  furnished  to  Congress  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  proves  the  legitimate  arid  growing  demand  for  butterine  and  discloses  the 
large  amount  of  revenue  derived  therefrom;  and 

"Whereas  we  believe  that  the  present  Federal  law  taxing  butterine  2  cents  per 
pound  and  the  additional  regulations  imposed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Rev- 
enue are  sufficient  to  properly  regulate  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine:  There- 
fore, be  it 

"Resolved,  That  we,  the  representatives  of  the  industrial  classes  in  Chicago,  and 
voicing,  as  we  know  we  do,  the  sentiments  of  the  mechanic  and  the  laborer  through- 
out the  country,  protest  against  the  passage  of  the  Tawney,  Grout,  or  any  other  bills 
that  have  for  their  object  the  further  increase  of  tax  or  the  relegating  to  the  different 
States  the  right  to  enact  laws  that  are  opposed  to  the  interests  of  the  people  and  in 

S.  Rep.  2043 n 


XVIII      OLEOMARGARINE   AND    OTHER   IMITATION   DAIRY   PRODUCTS. 

no  way  in  harmony  with  the  inventive  and  progressive  spirit  of  the  age;  and  be  it 
further 

"Resolved,  That  we  instruct  our  secretary  to  have  sufficient  copies  of  these  resolu- 
tions printed  that  one  be  mailed  to  every  Senator  and  Congressman  in  Washington 
and  one  to  each  of  the  labor  organizations  affiliated  with  the  Federation  of  Labor, 
requesting  them  to  indorse  same  or  pass  others  of  a  similar  character,  so  that  a  full 
expression  of  our  condemnation  of  such  legislation  may  be  made  known." 
Respectfully  submitted. 

WALTER  CAEMODY, 
Secretary  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor. 
******* 

BUILDING  TRADES  COUNCIL, 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  April  27,  1900. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  Building  Trades  Council  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  and  vicinity,  repre- 
senting over  5,000  mechanics,  has  by  unanimous  vote  indorsed  the  action  of  the 
Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  and  all  the  other  labor  organizations  who  are  so  doing 
in  opposing  the  persecution  of  the  butterine  industry. 

We  can  not  see  any  justification  in  placing  a  larger  or,  in  fact,  any  tax  on  butterine 
or  oleomargarine.  The  article  is  sold  on  its  merits,  and  it  would  rather  hurt  than 
help  its  sale  to  attempt  to  sell  it  for  butter,  as  it  is  more  popular  and  generally 
regarded  as  more  healthy  than  butter.  Any  of  our  people  that  may  not  want  but- 
terine can,  while  it  is  on  the  market,  buy  butter  at  a  reasonable  price,  but  if  the 
attempt  to  kill  it  by  legislation  is  successful,  the  butter  manufacturers  will  have  no 
competitors,  and  the  result  will  be  that  the  present  butter  trust  will  absorb  the 
butter  industry  and  control  the  purchase  of  milk  by  having  little  creameries  in  every 
farming  locality  on  the  plan  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company,  and  we  will  have  the 
pleasure  of  pacing  50  or  60  cents  per  pound  for  butter  or  going  without  it  altogether, 
the  chances  being  in  favor  of  the  latter. 

We  feel  that  as  butterine  is  demanded  and  sold  for  what  it  is,  and  as  the  laws 
regulating  its  manufacture  and  sale  are  operating  successfully  in  preventing  its 
adulteration,  that  the  legislative  bodies  of  our  country  have  gone  as  far  as  they  have 
any  right  to  go,  and  that  further  interference  on  their  part  is  persecution  and 
intended  to  advance  private  interests  at  the  expense  of  the  rights  of  the  people. 

There  is,  undoubtedly,  political  motive  behind  all  this. 

There  are  a  hundred  different  cases  in  which  legislative  vigilance  could  protect 
the  people  from  adulterated  foods  where  such  vigilance  is  not  exercised,  or  if  in  any 
remote  way  ever  applied  it  is  not  being  taken  advantage  of  by  the  officials  supposed 
to  enforce  it;  and  why?  Simply  because  the  manufacturers  of  adulterated  foods  or 
the  beneficiaries  of  their  existence  have  no  influential  competitors  to  be  served  by 
their  suppression. 

Butterine  has  been  the  victim  of  legislative  attacks  for  a  number  of  years,  and  we 
feel  it  is  now  time  to  let  up  on  it  and  devote  the  effort  wasted  in  the  persecution  of 
this  legitimate  industry  to  some  more  worthy  cause  in  the  protection  of  the  real 
interests  of  the  people. 

There  is  an  old  saying  that  "  He  who  is  bent  on  an  evil  deed  is  never  lacking  for 
an  excuse,"  and  it  is  certainly  applicable  in  this  case,  the  excuse  being  that  it  is 
wrong  to  color  butterine  because  it  is  likely  to  be  sold  as  butter,  whereas,  in  fact, 
owing  to  the  extreme  popularity  of  the  former,  there,  is  more  liability  of  an  attempt 
being  made  by  some  butter  manufacturer  to  imitate  it,  and  the  only*  reason  why  an 
attempt  is  ma'de  to  prevent  the  use  of  the  material  in  butterine  imparting  color  to  it 
is  to  hurt  its  sale,  as  it  has  been  proven  this  material  is  perfectly  healthy.  And 
where  is  the  justice  of  prohibiting  its  use  simply  because  it  helps  the  sale  of  an  honest 
product? 

As  long  as  the  people  want  butterine  and  it  is  good  to  use,  as  the  Goverment 
chemists  have  proven,  why  should  it  be  abolished?  We  can  not  see  that  there  is 
need  to  say  more.  You  can  not  but  see  the  rank  injustice  of  this  whole  business,  and 
we  would,  therefore,  earnestly  request,  in  the  name  of  common  American  justice, 
that  you  would  strenuously  oppose  and  exert  every  means  in  your  power  to  defeat 
all  such  legislation. 

This  letter  has  the  hearty  indorsement  of  our  body,  and  as  a  testimony  of  which  it 
bears  our  seal. 

W.  C.  DAVIS, 

President. 
GRANT  MORGAN, 

Secretary 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS.          XIX 

The  minority  insert  here,  as  a  part  of  their  report,  the  views  of  the 
minority  of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, which  is  as  follows: 

VIEWS  OF  THE  MINORITY. 

The  minority  of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
beg  leave  to  submit  the  accompanying  bill,  which  we  offer  as  a  substitute  for  H.  R. 
3717,  known  as  the  Grout  bill. 

We  first  wish  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  House  proof  positive  that  oleomarga- 
rine is  a  wholesome  and  nutritious  article  of  food  and  is  therefore  entitled  to  a  legiti- 
mate place  in  the  commerce  of  pur  country.  In  substantiation  of  this  statement  we 
beg  to  submit  the  following  testimony  taken  before  the  committee: 

OPINIONS   OF    LEADING    SCIENTISTS. 

Prof.  C.  F.  Chandler,  professor  of  chemistry  at  Columbia  College,  New  York,  says: 
"I  have  studied  the  question  of  its  use  as  food,  in  comparison  with  the  ordinary  but- 
ter made  from  cream,  and  have  satisfied  myself  that  it  is  quite  as  valuable  as  the 
butter  from  the  cow.  The  product  is  palatable  and  wholesome,  and  I  regard  it  as  a 
most  valuable  article  of  food." 

Prof.  George  F.  Barker,  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  says:  "Butterine  is,  in 
my  opinion,  quite  as  valuable  as  a  nutritive  agent  as  butter  itself.  It  is  perfectly 
wholesome,  and  is  desirable  as  an  article  of  food.  I  can  see  no  reason  why  butterine 
should  not  be  an  entirely  satisfactory  equivalent  for  ordinary  butter,  whether  con- 
sidered from  the  physiological  or  commercial  standpoint." 

Prof.  Henry  Morton,  of  the  Stevens  Institute  of  Technology,  New  Jersey,  says:  "I 
am  able  to  say  with  confidence  that  it  contains  nothing  whatever  which  is  injurious 
as  an  article  of  diet,  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  essentially  identical  with  the  best  fresh 
butter,  and  is  superior  to  much  of  the  butter  made  from  cream  alone  which  is  found$ 
in  the  market.  The  conditions  of  its  manufacture  involve  a  degree  of  cleanliness  and 
consequent  purity  in  the  product  such  as  are  by  no  means  necessarily  or  generally 
attained  in  the  ordinary  making  of  butter  from  cream." 

Prof.  S.  W.  Johnson,  director  of  the  Connecticut  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 
and  professor  of  agricultural  chemistry  in  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  says:  "It  is  a 
product  that  is  entirely  attractive  and  wholesome  as  food,  and  one  that  is  for  all 
ordinary  and  culinary  purposes  the  full  equivalent  of  good  butter  made  from  cream. 
I  regard  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  as  a  legitimate  and  beneficent  industry." 

Prof.  S.  C.  Caldwell,  of  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  says:  "While  not  equal 
to  fine  butter  in  respect  to  flavor,  it  nevertheless  contains  all  the  essential  ingredients 
of  butter,  and  since  it  contains  a  smaller  proportion  of  volatile  fats  than  is  found  in 
genuine  butter,  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  less  liable  to  become  rancid.  It  can  not  enter 
into  competition  with  fine  butter,  but  so  far  as  it  may  serve  to  drive  poor  butter  out 
of  the  market,  its  manufacture  will  be  a  public  benefit." 

Prof.  C.  A.  Goessman,  of  Amherst  Agricultural  College,  says:  "  Oleomargarine  but- 
ter compares  in  general  appearance  and  in  taste  very  favorably  with  the  average  quality 
of  the  better  kinds  of  dairy  butter  in  our  markets.  In  its  composition  it  resembles 
that  of  ordinary  dairy  butter,  and  in  its  keeping  quality,  under  corresponding  cir- 
cumstances, I  believe  it  will  surpass  the  former,  for  it  contains  a  smaller  percentage 
of  those  constituents  which,  in  the  main,  cause  the  well-known  rancid  taste  and  odor 
of  a  stored  butter." 

Prof.  Charles  P.  Williams,  professor  in  the  Missouri  State  University,  says:  "  It  is 
a  pure  and  wholesome  article  of  food,  and  in  this  respect,  as  well  as  in  respect  to  its 
chemical  composition,  fully  the  equivalent  of  the  best  quality  of  dairy  butter." 

Prof.  J.  W.  S.  Arnold,  professor  of  physiology  in  the  University  of  New  York,  says: 
' '  I  consider  that  each  and  every  article  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine 
butter  is  perfectly  pure  and  wholesome,  that  oleomargarine  butter  differs  in  no  essen- 
tial manner  from  butter  made  from  cream.  In  fact,  oleomargarine  butter  possesses 
the  advantage  over  natural  butter  of  not  decomposing  so  readily,  as  it  contains  fewer 
volatile  fats.  In  my  opinion  oleomargarine  is  to  be  considered  a  great  discovery,  a 
blessing  for  the  poor,  and  in  every  way  a  perfectly  pure,  wholesome,  and  palatable 
article  of  food." 

Prof.  W.  0.  Atwater,  director  of  the  United  States  Government  Agricultural  Experi- 
ment Station  at  Washington,  says:  "  It  contains  essentially  the  same  ingredients  as 
natural  butter  from  cow's  milk.  It  is  perfectly  wholesome  and  healthy  and  has  a 
high  nutritious  value." 


XX  OLEOMARGARINE    AND   OTHER   IMITATION   DAIRY   PRODUCTS. 

Prof.  Henry  E.  Alvord,  formerly  of  the  Massachusetts  Agricultural  College,  and 
president  of  the  Maryland  College  of  Agriculture,  and  now  chief  of  the  Dairy  Division, 
of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  one  of  the  best  butter  makers  in 
the  country,  says:  ''The  great  bulk  of  butterine  and  its  kindred  products  is  as  whole- 
some, cleaner,  and  in  many  respects  better,  than  the  lowr  grades  of  butter  of  which  so 
much  reaches  the  market." 

Prof.  Paul  Schweitzer,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D.,  professor  of  chemistry,  Missouri  State  Uni- 
versity, says :  '  'As  a  result  of  my  examination,  made  both  with  the  microscope  and  the 
delicate  chemical  tests  applicable  to  such  cases,  I  pronounce  butterine  to  be  wrholly 
and  unequivocally  free  from  any  deleterious  or  in  the  least  objectionable  substances. 
Carefully  made  physiological  experiments  reveal  no  difference  whatever  in  the  pala- 
tability  and  digestibility  between  butterine  and  butter." 

Professor  Wiley,  Chief  of  the  Division  of  Chemistry  of  the  United  States  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture,  also  appeared  before  the  committee  and  testified  to  the  nutritive 
and  wholesome  qualities  of  oleomargarine. 

The  Committee  on  Manufactures  of  the  United  States  Senate,  in  a  report  dated 
February  28,  1900,  finds,  from  the  evidence  before  it,  "that  the  product  known 
commercially  as  oleomargarine  is  healthful  and  nutritious." 

Judge  Hughes,  of  the  Federal  court  of  Virginia,  in  a  decision,  says: 

"It  is  a  fact  of  common  knowledge  that  oleomargarine  has  been  subjected  to  the 
severest  scientific  scrutiny  and  has  been  adopted  by  every  leading  government  in 
Europe  as  well  as  America  for  use  by  their  armies  and  navies.  Though  not  origi- 
nally invented  by  us,  it  is  a  gift  of  American  enterprise  and  progressive  invention  to 
the  world.  It  has  become  one  of  the  conspicuous  articles  of  interstate  commerce 
and  furnishes  a  large  income  to  the  General  Government  annually." 

Believing  that  this  testimony  establishes  beyond  controversy  that  oleomargarine 
is  a  nutritious  and  wholesome  article  of  food,  the  main  question  to  be  considered  is 
the  complaint  that  fraud  is  practiced  in  its  sale. 

The  only  just  complaint  (indeed,  the  only  complaint)  against  the  existing  oleo- 
margarine law  consists  in  the  facility  with  which  the  retail  dealer,  in  selling  from 
0the  original  or  wholesale  package  and  substituting  a  new  and  unmarked  wrapper, 
may  violate  the  law.  There  is  nothing  in  H.  R.3717  (known  as  the  Grout  bill) 
which  would  decrease  the  temptation  or  increase  the  difficulty  of  such  violations. 
On  the  contrary,  the  increased  taxation  would  either  be  fraudulently  evaded  or  else 
would  force  the  honest  manufacturer  out  of  business.  H.  R.  3717  merely  increases 
taxation  without  providing  any  new  or  additional  penalties  or  any  new  methods  to 
prevent  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter,  either  in  its  colored  or  uncolored  state. 
In  fact,  the  radical  advocates  of  the  Grout  bill  do  not  seek  this  end,  as  they  have 
declared  in  their  testimony  before  the  committee  and  in  declarations  elsewhere  that 
their  sole  intention  is  to  absolutely  crush  out  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  and 
eliminate  it  as  a  food  product. 

In  substantiation  of  this  assertion  we  quote  the  following: 

Mr.  Adames,  pure-food  commissioner  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  in  his  testimony 
before  the  committee  on  March  7,  1900,  said: 

"There  is  no  use  beating  about  the  bush  in  this  matter.  We  want  to  pass  this  law 
and  drive  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  out  of  the  business." 

Charles  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Union,  in  a  letter  to  the 
Virginia  Dairymen,  dated  May  18,  1900,  writes: 

"Now  is  the  time  for  you  to  clip  the  fangs  of  the  mighty  octopus  of  the  oleomar- 
garine manufacturers  who  are  ruining  the  dairy  interests  of  this  country  by  manu- 
facturing and  selling  in  defiance  of  law  a  spurious  article  in  imitation  of  pure  butter. 
We  have  a  remedy  almost  in  grasp  which  will  eliminate  the  manufacture  of  this 
article  from  the  food-product  list.  The  Grout  bill,  now  pending  in  the  Agricultural 
Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  Congress,  meets  the  demand." 

W.  D.  Hoard,  ex-governor  of  Wisconsin  and  president  of  the  National  Dairy  Union, 
stated  in  his  testimony  before  the  committee  on  March  7,  1900,  as  follows: 

"To  give  added  force  to  the  first  section  of  the  bill,  it  is  provided  in  the  second 
section  that  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  shall  be  imposed  on  all  oleomargarine  in  the 
color  or  semblance  of  butter.  In  plain  words,  this  is  repressive  taxation." 

In  view  of  this  testimony  the  minority  believe  they  are  justified  in  claiming  that 
the  Grout  bill,  if  enacted  into  law,  would  destroy  the  business  of  the  legitimate  oleo- 
margarine manufacturers.  In  other  words,  Congress  is  being  asked  to  ruin  one 
industry  to  benefit  another;  and  this,  in  the  opinion  of  the  minority,  is  a  thing  Con- 
gress ought  not  to  do.  The  minority  believe  it  to  be  class  legislation  of  the  most 
pronounced  kind  and  wrould  establish  a  precedent  which,  if  followed,  would  create 
monopolies,  destroy  competition,  and  militate  against  the  public  good. 

The  substitute  bill  offered  by  the  minority  would,  in  our  opinion,  eliminate  all 
possibility  of  fraud  and  would  compel  the  manufacturers  of  and  dealers  in  oleomar- 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND    OTHER   IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS.         XXI 

garine  to  sell  it  for  what  it  really  is  and  not  for  butter.  The  substitute  offered  is 
practically  an  amendment  to  sections  3  and  6  of  the  existing  oleomargarine  law.  The 
licenses  for  manufacture  and  sale  of  this  article  are  not  changed,  and  are  as  follows: 
Manufacturers,  $600  per  annum;  wholesale  dealers,  $480  per  annum;  retailers,  $48 
per  annum,  while  the  penalties  imposed  for  violation  of  the  law  are  materially 
increased.  We  quote  in  full  section  2  of  the  substitute  bill,  and  ask  for  it  the  careful 
and  thoughtful  consideration  of  the  House,  believing  that  it  is  just  and  fair  to  all  the 
interests  involved: 

"SEC.  2.  That  all  oleomargarine  shall  be  put  up  by  the  manufacturer  for^sale  in 
packages  of  one  and  two  pounds,  respectively,  and  in  no  other  or  larger  or  smaller 
package;  and  upon  every  print,  brick,  roll,  or  lump  of  oleomargarine,  before  being  so 
put  up  for  sale  or  removal  from  the  factory,  there  shall  be  impressed  by  the  manu- 
facturer the  word  "oleomargarine"  in  sunken  letters,  the  size  of  which  shall  be  pre- 
scribed by  regulations  made  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  and  approved 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  and  every  such  print,  brick,  roll,  or  lump  of  oleomar- 
garine shall  first  be  wrapped  with  paper  wrapper  with  the  word  "oleomargarine" 
printed  thereon  in  distinct  letters,  and  said  wrapper  shall  also  bear  the  name  of  the 
manufacturer,  and  then  shall  be  put  by  the  manufacturer  thereof  in  such  wooden  or 
paper  packages  or  in  such  wrappers,  with  the  word  "oleomargarine"  printed  thereon 
in  distinct  letters,  and  marked,  stamped,  and  branded  in  such  manner  as  the  Com- 
missioner of  Internal  Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
shall  prescribe,  and  the  internal-revenue  stamp  shall  be  affixed  so  as  to  surround  the 
outer  wrapper  of  each  one  and  two  pound  package:  Provided,  That  any  number  of 
such  original  stamped  packages  may  be  put  up  by  the  manufacturer  in  crates  or  boxes, 
on  the  outside  of  which  shall  be  marked  the  word  "oleomargarine,"  with  such  other 
marks  and  brands  as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  shall,  by  regulations 
approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  prescribe. 

"Retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine  shall  sell  only  the  original  package  to  which  the 
tax-paid  stamp  is  affixed. 

"  Every  person  who  knowingly  sells  or  offers  for  sale,  or  delivers  or  offers  to  deliver, 
any  oleomargarine  otherwise  than  as  provided  by  this  act  or  contrary  to  the  regula- 
tions of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  made  in  pursuance  hereof  or  who 
packs  in  any  package  any  oleomargarine  in  any  manner  contrary  to  law,  or  who  shall 
sell  or  offer  for  sale  as  butter  any  oleomargarine,  colored  or  uncolored,  or  who  falsely 
brands  any  package,  or  affixes  a  stamp  on  any  package  denoting  a  less  amount  of 
tax  than  that  required  by  law,  shall  be  fined  for  the  first  offense  not  less  than  one 
hundred  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars  and  be  imprisoned  not  less  than  thirty 
days  nor  more  than  six  months;  and  for  the  second  and  every  subsequent  offense 
shall  be  fined  not  less  than  two  hundred  nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars  and  be 
imprisoned  not  less  than  sixty  days  nor  more  than  two  years." 

One  of  the  claims  made  by  the  friends  of  the  Grout  bill  is  that  it  will  protect  the 
interests  of  the  farmer.  We  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  every  ingredient  that 
enters  into  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  is  as  much  a  product  of  the  farm  as  the 
butter,  and  that  such  ingredients  are  made  more  valuable  on  account  of  their  use  in 
the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine. 

Your  committee  has  had  before  it  representatives  of  both  the  cattle  and  hog  raisers 
of  the  country,  and  also  representatives  of  the  cotton  industry,  and  they  are  unani- 
mous in  their  opinion  that  their  business  will  be  materially  injured  and  the  price  of 
their  product  lowered  by  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill  and  the  destruction  of  the 
oleomargarine  industry. 

The  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  does  not  interfere  with  the  growth  and 
prosperity  of  the  butter  industry.  Statistics  show  a  much  greater  percentage  in  the 
increase  of  the  production  of  butter  than  in  the  production  of  oleomargarine.  Though 
similar  in  ingredients,  they  are  not  strictly  competing,  as  the  oleomargarine  is  prac- 
tically all  bought  by  the  poorer  class  of  our  people. 

In  justification  of  this  statement  we  have  received  a  large  number  of  petitions  from 
the  labor  organizations  of  our  country  protesting  against  the  passage  of  this  bill  for 
the  above-given  reasons. 

It  being  possible  to  keep  oleomargarine  in  a  sweet  and  sound  condition  much  longer 
than  butter,  it  is  also  used  extensively  in  the  mining  and  lumber  camps,  on  explor- 
ing and  hunting  expeditions,  on  ships  at  sea,  and  by  armies  in  the  field. 

The  claim  made  by  the  friends  of  the  Grout  bill  that  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
oleomargarine  has  greatly  depreciated  the  price  of  butter  will  not  obtain  when  it  is 
known  that  there  is  now  manufactured  in  the  United  States  nearly  2,000,000,000 
pounds  of  butter  annually,  and  it  is  positively  known  that  there  only  were  83, 000, 000 
pounds  of  oleomargarine  manufactured  last  year,  which  shows  that  the  amount  of 
oleomargarine  produced  is  about  4  per  cent  of  the  amount  of  butter  produced.  There- 


XXII        OLEOMARGARINE   AND    OTHER   IMITATION    DAIRY   PRODUCTS. 


fore,  the  argument  that  oleomargarine  in  any  material  sense  controls  the  price  of 
butter  is  not  justified  by  the  facts. 

The  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  have  in  no  way  depreciated  the  price 
of  butter,  as  more  butter  is  being  sold  at  higher  price  in  this  country  than  ever 
before,  as  shown  by  testimony. 

It  is  a  suggestive  fact  that  those  sections  of  our  country  which  are  most  exclusively 
devoted  to  the  "dairy  interests  are  blessed  with  the  greatest  prosperity,  as  brought 
out  in  the  testimony  of  ex-Governor  Hoard,  of  Wisconsin,  before  our  committee, 
who  said  that  a  few  years  ago  land  was  worth  only  $15  an  acre  in  that  State,  but  as 
the  State  began  to  be  devoted  more  exclusively  to  the  dairy  interests  land  had  rapidly 
appreciated  in  price,  and  that  farmers  had  gotten  out  of  debt,  had  paid  their  mort- 
gages, and  the  land  is  now  worth  the  sum  of  $80  per  acre,  this  price  averaging  much 
higher  than  agricultural  lands  in  other  parts  of  the  country. 

In  conclusion  the  members  of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture  who  have  joined  in 
this  minority  report  beg  to  assure  the  House  and  the  country  in  the  most  solemn 
manner  possible  that  it  has  been  their  earnest  intention,  and  is  now  their  determina- 
tion, to  do  everything  possible  to  be  done  to  enforce  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  oleo- 
margarine and  to  prevent  its  sale  as  butter.  To  prevent  fraud  and  not  to  stamp  out 
an  industry  has  been  and  is  our  purpose.  We  believe  that  it  ought  to  be  the  sole 
purpose  of  all  legislation  and  the  sole  motive  of  all  just  men. 

J.  W.  WADSWORTH. 

WM.  LORIMER. 

W.  J.  BAILEY. 

G.  H.  WHITE. 

JOHN  S.  WILLIAMS. 

J.  WM.  STOKES. 

H.  D.  ALLEN. 
Mr.  W.  E.  Miller  said: 

At  this  juncture  we  would  like  to  introduce  as  evidence  an  article  from  Experiment 
Station  Record,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  on  the  nutritive  value  of 
oleomargarine : 

"THE  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF   MARGARIN   COMPARED  WITH   BUTTER.    E.  Bertarelli  (RlV. 

Ig.  eSan.  Pubb.,  9  (1898),  Nos.  14,  pp.  538-545;  15,  pp.  570-579}.—  Three  experiments 
with  healthy  men  are  reported  in  which  the  value  of  margarin  and  butter  was  tested 
when  consumed  as  part  of  a  simple  mixed  diet.  In  one  experiment  the  value  of  a 
mixture  of  olive  oil  and  colza  oil,  which  is  commonly  used  in  Italy  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Turin,  was  also  tested.  The  author  himself  was  the  subject  of  one  of  the 
tests.  He  was  24  years  old.  The  subjects  of  the  other  tests  were  two  laboratory 
servants,  one  27  years  old,  the  other  32  years  old.  The  coefficients  of  digestibility 
and  the  balance  of  income  and  outgo  of  nitrogen  in  the  different  experiments  were  as 
follows: 

Digestion  experiments  with  margarin,  butter,  and  oil. 


Time. 

Coefficients  of  digestibility. 

Nitrogen. 

Protein. 

Fat. 

Carbo- 
hydrates. 

In 
food. 

In 
urine. 

In 
feces. 

Gain. 

Laboratory  servant,  P.  G.  :  500  gm. 
white  bread,  270  gm.  veal,  70  gm. 
butter,  250-300  cc  wine 

Days. 

5 

5 
6 
6 

5 
5 

5 

Per  cent. 
81.75 

79.50 
81.85 
77.80 

85.32 
82.92 
83.27 

Per  cent. 
92.67 

93.90 
94.25 
93.73 

95.80 
95.33 

95.82 

Per  cent. 
97.25 

97.07 
97.35 
96.70 

97.38 
97.24 
97.56 

Gms. 
15.7 

15.7 
13.5 
13.5 

16.5 
16.9 
17.5 

Gms. 

9.6 

10.3 
10.1 
9.6 

13.2 
12.5 
13.4 

Gms. 
2.6 

3.2 
2.5 
3.1 

2.9 
3.4 
3.5 

Gms. 
3.5 

2.2 
.9 
.8 

.4 
1.0 

.6 

Laboratory  servant,  P.  G.  :  500  gm  . 
white  bread,  250  gm.veal,  70  gm. 
margarin,  250-300  cc.  wine  
Author:  450  gm.  white  bread,  250 
gm.  meat,  70  gm.  butter 

Author:  450  gm.  white  bread,  250 
gm.  meat,  70  gm.  margarin  
Laboratory  servant,  F.  D.:  824  gm. 
white  bread,  250  gm.  meat,  61.6 
gm.  butter  

Laboratory  servant,  F.  D.:  859  gm. 
white  bread,  250  gm.  meat,  61.6 
gm.  margarin     .          .  .  ^     

Laboratory  servant,  F.  D.  :  910  gm. 
white  bread,  250  gm.  meat,  61.6 
gm.  olive  and  colza  oils  

OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER   IMITATION   DAIRY   PRODUCTS.      XXIII 

"The  principal  conclusions  follow:  When  properly  prepared,  margarin  differs  but 
little  from  natural  butter  in  chemical  and  physical  properties.  On  an  average  93.5 
to  96  per  cent  of  fat  was  assimilated  when  margarin  was  consumed  and  94  to  96  per 
cent  when  butter  formed  part  of  the  diet.  The  moderate  use  of  margarin  did  not 
cause  any  disturbance  of  the  digestive  tract." 

*  *  *  *  *        .  *  * 

This  is  a  resolution  passed  by  the  Sioux  City  Live  Stock  Exchange: 

"Whereas  a  bill  has  been  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  known  as 
House  bill  6,  providing  for  an  amendment  of  'An  act  denning  butter,  also  imposing 
a  tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale,  importation,  and  exportation  of 
oleomargarine;'  and 

"Whereas  such  a  bill,  if  enacted,  is  calculated  to  build  up  and  restore  one  industry 
at  the  expense  of  another  by  means  of  uncalled-for  and  unjust  taxation;  and 

"Whereas  the  destruction  of  the  oleomargarine  industry  would  greatly  impair  the 
market  value  of  beef  cattle,  and  would  thereby  deprive  the  producer  of  a  large  amount 
of  revenue:  Therefore,  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  the  Sioux  City  Live  Stock  Exchange  of  Sioux  City,  Iowa,  emphat- 
ically protests  against  the  enactment  of  the  law  proposed  in  House  bill  No.  6. 

"Witness  the  signatures  of  the  president  and  secretary  of  said  exchange  and  the 
official  seal  thereof  affixed  at  Sioux  City,  Iowa,  December  28,  1899. 

"J.  H.  NASOX,  President 
"WM.  MAGIVNY,  Secretary." 

*******  4 

These  are  resolutions  passed  by  the  Texas  Cotton-Seed  Crushers'  Association: 

"DEAR  SIR:  At  a  meeting  of  the  Cotton-Seed  Crushers'  Association,  held  in  Dallas 
on  Tuesday,  November  14,  1899,  T.  P.  Sullivan,  of  Jefferson;  R.  K.  Erwin,  of  Waxa- 
hachie;  W.  R.  Moore,  of  Ardmore,  Ind.  T.,  and  Robert  Gibson,  secretary,  of  Dallas, 
were  appointed  a  committee  to  draft  resolutions  expressive  of  the  sense  of  the  meet- 
ing on  the  matters  discussed.  The  resolutions  as  submitted  were  unanimously 
adopted,  and  are  as  follows: 

"MARION  SANSOM,  Chairman: 

' '  The  undersigned  committee  appointed  by  you  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following 
preamble  and  resolutions: 

"Whereas  the  line  of  industrial  business  represented  by  this  association  is  coexten- 
sive with  the  entire  area  of  the  cotton-cultivated  zone  of  our  Southern  States  and,  in 
conjunction  with  cotton  in  its  various  uses,  represents  the  wealth  of  the  South;  and 

' '  Whereas  Texas  represents  over  30  per  cent  of  the  cotton  and  cotton  seed  annually 
produced  in  the  United  States,  any  embargo  placed  by  legislation  on  the  growth  and 
development  of  our  industry  is  detrimental  to  the  vast  interests  committed  to  our  care. 
It  is  therefore  of  most  vital  necessity  that  all  avenues  leading  to  the  sale  and  con- 
sumption of  our  cotton-oil  products  should  be  free  and  unrestricted,  and  inasmuch  as 
cotton  oil  is  used  to  a  large  extent  in  the  manufacture  of  butterine,  which  is  a  most 
wholesome  and  healthful  substitute  for  butter;  and 

"Whereas  a  tax  at  present  exists  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  the  manufacture  of  this 
most  healthful  article  of  food,  and  that  it  is  contemplated  to  introduce  at  the  next 
session  of  Congress  an  increased  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  on  same:  It  is,  therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  this  association  enter  its  protest  against  the  existing  tax  of  2  cents 
per  pound  on  butterine  and  ask  for  its  abrogation  and  repeal,  and  against  the  intro- 
duction or  adoption  of  any  future  tax  on  same  as  an  article  of  food,  as  it  directly 
affects  our  great  industry  both  at  home  and  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  where  a 
cheap  and  wholesome  article  of  food,  such  as  butterine,  is  appreciated. 

' '  Resolved,  That  we  believe  the  imposition  of  a  special  tax  of  this  nature  is  class  legis- 
lation and  should  be  combatted  by  all  the  means  at  our  command,  and  that  our  Sen- 
ators and  Representatives  in  Congress  are  hereby  requested  to  give  us  all  the  neces- 
sary aid  in  this  behalf ;  and  it  is  further 

' '  Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  this  association  transmit  a  copy  of  these  resolutions 
to  each  cotton-oil  mill  in  the  South,  with  the  request  that  they  interest  their  Senators 
and  Representatives  therein,  and  also  to  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Con- 
gress from  Texas. 

"T.  P.  SULLIVAN,  Chairman,  Jefferson,  Tex. 

"R.  K.  ERWIN,  Waxahachie,  Tex. 

"W.  R.  MOORE,  Ardmore,  Ind.  T. 

"  ROBERT  GIBSON,  Secretary,  Dallas,  Tex." 


XXIV       OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS. 

Resolutions  against  oleomargarine  tax  offered  at  meeting  of  cotton-oil  mill  super- 
intendents: 

"CHARLESTON,  S.  C.,  July  6. 

"Cotton-oil  superintendents  from  South  Carolina  and  North  Carolina  met  yester- 
day at  the  Calhoun  Hotel  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  the  cotton-oil  mill  superin- 
tendents' association ; 

'  'After  the  constitution  and  by-laws  were  read  and  adopted,  the  following  resolu- 
tions were  offered  by  A.  A.  Haynes: 

"  'Resolved,  That  this  association,  representing  millions  of  dollars  of  invested  capital 
in  the  South,  strongly  protest  against  national  class  legislation  which  aims  directly  at 
the  destruction  of  competition  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  wholesome  and  health- 
ful articles  of  food. 

"  'Resolved,  That  we  protest  strenuously  against  the  passage  by  Congress  of  the 
Grout  oleomargarine  bill,  which  proposes  to  tax  oleomargarine  10  cents  per  pound, 
and  thus  to  drive  it  from  the  market. 

"  'Resolved,  That  this  association  implores  Congress  not  to  destroy  an  industry 
which  now  uses  nearly  10,000,000  pounds  of  the  best  grade  of  cotton-seed  oil  annu- 
ally, and  thus  kill  that  quantity  of  pur  most  profitable  output. 

"  'Resolved,  That  we  urge  the  legislatures  of  South  Carolina  and  of  other  Southern 
States  to  remove  from  their  statute  books  the  antioleomargarine  legislation  thereon, 
because  such  acts  are  only  in  the  interest  of  the  renovated  and  process  butter  facto- 
ries of  the  North  and  Northwest,  and  against  the  hog  fats,  beef  fats,  and  cotton-seed- 
oil  products  grown  on  our  Southern  farms. 

" ' Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  to  the  National  Provisioner,  of 
New  York  and  Chicago,  the  indomitable  champion  of  the  cotton-oil  interests,  for 
publication,  and  that  the  members  of  this  association  proceed  to  secure,  if  possible, 
the  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  State  laws  above  referred  to. 

' '  'Resolved,  That  this  association  will  do  what  it  can  to  cause  the  defeat  of  the 
Grout  antioleomargarine  bill  in  Congress  during  the  coming  session.'  " 

Mr.  John  C.  McCoy  presented  the  following  resolutions: 

THE  KANSAS  CITY  LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE, 

Kansas  City,  Mo.,  February  8, 1900. 

The  following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  by  the  board 
of  directors  of  the  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange  at  a  regular  meeting  held  Feb- 
ruary 5,  1900: 

"Whereas  certain  bills  have  been  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  looking  for  the  enactment  of  a  law,  by  way  of  taxation,  whereby 
the  manufacture,  sale,  importation,  and  exportation  of  oleomargarine  will  be  ruined; 
and 

"Whereas  such  bills,  if  passed  and  allowed  to  become  laws,  will  build  up  one 
industry  at  the  expense  of  tearing  down  and  ruining  another,  the  logical  effect  of 
which  will  be  the  granting  of  a  monopoly  to  the  industry  sought  to  be  benefited;  and 

"Whereas  the  destruction  of  the  oleomargarine  industry  will  reduce  the  value  of 
cattle  and  hogs  to  the  farmers  and  raisers  thereof,  as  well  as  work  a  hardship  upon 
millions  of  poor  people  who  are  unable  to  pay  the  fancy  prices  asked  for  butter: 
Therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange,  of  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  earnestly 
protest  against  the  enactment  of  the  law  proposed  relating  to  oleomargarine;  and  be 
it  further 

Resolved,  That  the  board  of  directors  of  this  exchange  be  requested  to  memorialize 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  against  the  passage  of  a  law  or  laws  inimical  to  the 
live-stock  industry,  and  that  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  to  the  honorable  the 
Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States." 
Respectfully,  yours, 

W.  S.  PI  ANN  AH,  President. 

Mr.  William  H.  Thompson,  president  National  Live  Stock  Exchange, 
Chicago,  111.,  said: 

In  round  numbers  there  are  75,000,000  people  in  this  country.  I  believe  a  reason- 
able estimate  of  the  number  of  Indians  and  children  under  a  butter-eating  age  to  be 
25,000,000,  which  would  leave  a  population  of  50,000,000  outside  of  these  classes 
\vho  are  consumers  of  butter. 

Of  this  50,000,000  people  at  least  one-half  are  able  to  buy  the  best  butter  manu- 
factured, irrespective  of  price,  while  the  other  25,000,000  are  a  class  of  people  whom 
the  butterine  manufacturers  aim  to  reach  and  benefit,  and  are  a  class  of  our  citizens 


OLEOMARGARINE    AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS.        XXV 

known  as  laborers,  not  in  the  common  acceptance  of  the  term,  but  as  a  class  of  peo- 
ple following  a  variety  of  pursuits  at  small  salaries,  and  in  most  cases,  owing  to  their 
dependencies  and  meager  earnings,  compelled  to  go  without  the  luxuries  of  life. 

It  is  this  class  of  people  whose  interests  need  careful  consideration,  whose  claims 
upon  you  as  their  representatives  are  invariably  backed  by  justice,  who  are  always 
the  greatest  sufferers  by  and  the  most  sensitive  to  inimical  legislation,  who  always  are 
the  first  to  respond  to  and  cheerfully  comply  with  all  just  and  reasonable  laws. 

As  the  representative  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Exchange,  I  also  plead  for  a  con- 
sideration of  the  rights  of  this  class  of  our  citizens,  who,  from  the  nature  of  their  sur- 
roundings and  conditions,  are  unable  to  appear  before  you  in  their  own  behalf. 

They,  who  are  the  principal  consumers  of  butterine,  are  not  asking  for  any  legisla- 
tion. The  producers  and  raisers  of  fat  cattle  are  not  asking  you  for  any  legislation  in 
this  respect. 

Why  should  it  be  any  more  unlawful  to  put  into  butterine,  the  product  of  the 
beef  steer,  the  same  coloring  matter  as  is  put  into  butter,  the  similar  product  of  his 
sister,  the  dairy  cow? 

Is  there  any  equity  or  justice  in  such  denial?  Is  it  made  necessary  by  the  condi- 
tions? Is  it  warranted  upon  any  grounds?  If  it  is,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  comprehend  it. 

This  kind  of  legislation  is  most  assuredly  the  worst  and  most  vicious  kind  of  class 
legislation,  because  it  is  inaugurated  solely  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  a  competi- 
tive industry  equally  as  important  and  equally  as  deserving  of  legislative  support 
and  protection. 

The  Grout  bill  represents  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  tax  one  legitimate 
industry  out  of  existence  for  the  benefit  of  another  industry.  The  ostensible  pur- 
pose is  protection  to  the  consumers  against  "imitation  butter;"  but  the  public  has 
never  asked  for  such  protection.  It  does  not  even  object  to  the  coloring  of  butterine 
the  same  as  butter,  so  long  as  the  butterine  is  properly  labeled  and  sold  on  its  merits. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  consumers  of  butterine  prefer  to  have  it  colored,  so  long  as 
the  coloring  material  used  is  harmless.  They  like  butterine  because  of  its  cheapness 
and  because  they  are  satisfied  with  its  purity  and  wholesomeness. 

The  enactment  of  this  bill  will  not  only  deprive  the  consumer  of  a  healthy  and 
nutritious  article  of  food,  but  immediately  it  becomes  a  law  will  depreciate  the  value 
of  the  beef  cattle  and  take  from  the  producers  of  this  ^country  upward  of  forty-five 
millions  of  dollars. 

The  following  is  not  part  of  the  hearing  before  the  committee,  but 
is  vouched  for  as  the  true  resolution  passed  by  the  convention. 

At  the  Fourth  Annual  Convention  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Asso- 
ciation, held  at  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  January  15, 16,  IT,  and  18, 1901, 
at  which  1,412  delegates  were  represented  and  5,000  visitors  were  pres- 
ent, from  nearly  every  State  and  Territory  in  the  Union,  the  following 
memorial  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  was  adopted: 

To  the  honorable  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

Your  orator,  the  National  Live  Stock  Association,  respectfully  represent  unto 
your  honorable  body  that  it  is  an  association  composed  of  126  live-stock  and  kindred 
organizations,  all  directly  interested  in  the  production,  marketing,  and  disposing  of 
live  stock,  and  whose  holdings  thereof  represent  an  investment  of  over  $600,000,000. 

Your  orator,  in  annual  session  assembled  at  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  desires  to  enter 
its  emphatic  protest  against  the  enactment  of  what  is  commonly  known  as  the  Grout 
bill  (House  bill  3717),  and  in  behalf  of  its  protest  desires  to  record  a  few  of  the 
many  reasons  in  support  of  its  contention. 

This  measure  is  a  species  of  class  legislation  of  the  most  iniquitous  and  dangerous 
kind,  calculated  to  build  up  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  another  equally  as 
important. 

It  seeks  to  impose  an  unjust,  uncalled-for,  and  unwarranted  burden  upon  one  of 
the  principal  commercial  industries  of  the  country  for  the  purpose  of  prohibiting  its 
manufacture,  thereby  destroying  competition,  as  the  manufacturers  can  not  assume 
the  additional  burdens  sought  to  be  imposed  by  this  measure  and  sell  their  product 
in  competition  with  butter. 

"The  passage  of  this  law  would  destroy  the  demand,  except  for  export,  for  that 
product  of  the  beef  of  animals,  oil  of  oleo,  of  which  24,000,OCK)  pounds  was  used  in 
the  year  1899  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  and  also  would  seriously  injure 
the  hog  industry  by  a  similar  destruction  of  the  demand,  except  for  export,  of  neutral 
lard,  31, 000, 000  pounds  of  which  was  used  in  the  year  1899  in  the  manufacture  of 
this  food  product,  and  by  thus  eliminating  the  demand  for  these  legitimate  articles 

S.  Rep.  2043 in 


XXVI      OLEOMARGARINE   AND    OTHER    IMITATION    DAIRY    PRODUCTS 

of  commerce  force  dealers  to  seek  other  channels  for  their  disposition,  at  greatly 
reduced  prices,  thereby  entailing  a  loss  to  the  producers  of  live  stock  of  the  United 
States  of  millions  of  dollars  annually. 

"The  measure  seeks  to  throttle  competition,  and,  if  enacted,  will  render  useless 
immense  establishments,  erected  at  great  expense,  for  the  manufacture  of  oleomarga- 
rine, deprive  thousands  of  employees  of  the  opportunity  to  gain  a  livelihood,  and 
deny  the  people — and  especially  the  workingmen  and  their  dependencies — of  a  whole- 
some article  of  diet. 

' '  In  oleomargarine  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  consumers  of  this  country,  and 
especially  the  working  classes,  have  a  wholesome,  nutritious,  and  satisfactory  article 
of  diet,  which,  before  its  advent,  they  were  obliged — owing  to  the  high  price  of  butter 
and  their  limited  means — to  go  without. 

' '  Your  orator  contends  that  it  is  manifestly  unjust,  unreasonable,  and  unfair  to  deny 
manufacturers  of  the  product  of  the  beef  animal  and  the  hog  the  same  privileges  in 
regard  to  the  use  of  coloring  matter  that  are  accorded  to  the  manufacturers  of  the 
product  of  the  dairy,  and  that  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  producers  of  cattle  and 
hogs  should  be  as  well  respected  as  those  of  others,  and,  as  they  are  the  beneficiaries 
in  the  manufacture  of  this  wholesome  article  of  food,  they  should  not  be  burdened 
with  unnecessary  and  oppressive  special  taxes  or  needless  restrictions  in  the  manu- 
facture of  this  product,  other  than  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  support  of  th^  Gov- 
ernment and  the  proper  governmental  regulations  surrounding  the  handling  of  the 
same. 

Your  orator  respectfully  contends  that  these  products  should  receive  at  the  hands 
of  Congress  no  greater  exactions  than  those  imposed  upon  competing  food  products; 
and  that  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  is  already  surrounded  by  numer- 
ous safeguards  which  Congress,  in  its  wisdom,  has  seen  fit  to  provide,  stipulating  a 
severe  punishment  for  selling  same  under  misrepresentation  as  to  its  composition; 
and  that  this  produce  has,  by  experience,  proven  to  be  just  what  a  large  majority  of 
the  people  of  this  country  want,  and  that  none  but  the  dairy  and  allied  interests  are 
asking  for  or  seeking  any  further  legislation  in  this  matter,  and  their  indorsement  of 
the  proposed  legislation  is  purely  and  simply  selfish. 

In  conclusion,  your  orator,  in  behalf  of  the  producers  and  consumers  of  this 
great  country,  solemnly  protests  against  the  enactment  of  the  Grout  bill  or  any  other 
legislation  calculated  to  entail  an  enormous  loss  on  the  live-stock  producers  of  this 
country,  to  ruin  a  great  industry,  and  to  deprive  not  only  the  working  classes,  but 
many  others  of  a  cheap,  wholesome,  nutritious,  and  acceptable  article  of  food. 

THE  NATIONAL  LIVE  STOCK  ASSOCIATION. 
JOHN  W.  SPRINGER,  President, 
By  C.  F.  MARTIN,  Secretary. 

The  bill  recommended  by  the  majority  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
minority,  an  unconstitutional  measure  in  that  it  is  class  legislation. 
If  it  is  designed  as  a  revenue  measure,  then  it  would  be  unconstitu- 
tional, because  it  taxes  one  man  for  the  benefit  of  another,  which, 
according  to  the  language  of  the  Supreme  Court,  "is  robbery  under 
the  form  of  law." 

H.  D.  MONEY. 

HENRY  HEITFELD. 

I  concur  generally  in  the  views  expressed  in  this  minority  report, 
without  indorsing  all  the  expressions  therein  used,  especially  in  the 
testimony  of  witnesses  and  extracts  made  a  part  of  it.  I  concur  fully, 
however,  in  the  conclusion  of  the  minority  that  the  bill  ought  not  to 
pass. 

WM.  B.  BATE. 


THE  OLEOMARGARINE  BILL. 


HEARINGS 


BEFORE  THE 


UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


ON  THE 


BILL  (H.  R.  3717)  TO  MAKE  OLEOMARGARINE  AND  OTHER  IMITATION 

DAIRY  PRODUCTS  SUBJECT  TO  THE  LAWS  OF  THE  STATE  OR 

TERRITORY  INTO  WHICH  THEY  ARE  TRANSPORTED,  AND 

TO  CHANGE  THE  TAX  ON  OLEOMARGARINE. 


S.  Rep.  2043 1 


HEARINGS  ON  THE  OLEOMARGARINE  BILL. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C., 
Wednesday,  December  19,  1900. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Proctor  (chair man),  Hansbrough,  Warren,  Foster, 
Bate,  Money,  Heitfeld,  and  Allen. 

Also,  Hon.  William  W.  Grout,  a  Representative  from  the  State  of 
Vermont;  Hon.  W.  D.  Hoard,  ex-governor  of  Wisconsin  and  presi- 
dent of  the  National  Dairy  Union;  C.  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the 
National  Dairy  Union;  Hon.  William  M.  Springer,  of  Springfield,  111., 
representing  the  National  Live  Stock  Association ;  Frank  M.  Mathew- 
son,  president  of  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing  Company,  of  Providence, 
R.  I.;  Rathbone  Gardner,  representing  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing 
Company,  of  Providence,  R.  I. ;  Frank  W.  Tillinghast,  representing 
the  Vermont  Manufacturing  Company,  of  Providence,  R.  I. ;  Charles 
E.  Schell,  representing  the  Ohio  Butterine  Company,  of  Cincinnati, 
Ohio;  and  others. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  W.  W.  GROUT. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  General  Grout,  whose  name  has  been  given  to  the 
bill,  is  here,  and  we  shall  be  glad  to  have  him  make  any  statement  in 
regard  to  the  bill  which  he  sees  fit. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  shall 
detain  you  only  a  moment. 

It  was  thought  best  that  the  friends  of  the  bill  should  open  with  a 
very  brief  statement,  and  we  do  so  by  submitting  the  hearings  before 
the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture,  which  were  quite  full,  and  the 
report  of  that  committee  of  the  bill  to  the  House,  together  with  the 
minority  views. 

It  has  also  been  thought  well  that  some  one  should  explain  somewhat 
to  you,  as  the  subject  I  presume  is  new  to  most  of  the  committee,  the 
general  scope  of  the  bill. 

The  first  section  puts  all  imitation  dairy  products  under  the  control 
of  State  laws  the  moment  they  come  from  the  State  of  manufacture, 
or  from  one  State  into  another,  to  state  it  more  exactly.  This  princi- 
ple has  already  been  established  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  case  of  Plumley  v.  The  State  of  Massachusetts,  which  came  up 
to  the  Supreme  Court  on  a  writ  of  error  from  the  supreme  court  of 
that  State.  Plumley  was  indicted  for  a  violation  of  the  State  law  in 
the  sale  of  oleomargarine  and  was  convicted  and  imprisoned.  He 
brought  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  before  the  State  court.  The  State 
court  held  the  proceeding  regular.  It  was  brought  here  on  a  writ  of 
error,  and  the  Supreme  Court  decided  that  the  State  of  Massachusetts 


4  OLEOMARGARINE. 

had  the  right  to  pass  a  law  taking  control  of  this  article  so  soon  as  it 
came  into  the  State,  the  interstate  clause  of  the  Constitution  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding;  and  that  the  State  had  the  right  to  enforce 
that  law  on  the  ground  that  this  article  was  calculated  to  deceive,  it 
being  made  in  imitation  of  butter.  It  was  upon  that  ground  that  the 
case  went  off  in  the  State  court,  and  it  was  upon  that  ground  that  it 
was  affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

You  tnay  ask,  then,  why  do  we  need  any  statute  law  on  the  subject, 
the  Supreme  Court  having  settled  it?  Here  is  the  reason  why:  That 
decision  was  made  by  a  divided  court,  Chief  Justice  Fuller  and  two 
associate  justices  dissenting  from  the  view  taken  by  the  majority  of 
the  court,  the  opinion  having  been  given  by  Mr.  Justice  Harlan.  It 
has  been  thought  for  these  many  years — this  was  a  decision  some  eight 
or  nine  years  ago;  I  have  forgotten  the  exact  date  of  it — it  has  been 
thought  by  the  dairy  interests  that  they  wanted  this  written  in  the 
statutes  of  the  country  as  well  as  in  a  Supreme  Court  decision,  for  the 
question  is  very  likely  to  arise  there  again,  and  it  might  result  in  a 
different  decision  by  the  court. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Allow  me  to  make  a  suggestion.  In  the  Schollenber- 
ger  case,  in  Pennsylvania,  the  circuit  judges — some  of  them,  at  least — 
overruled  or  reversed  the  Plumley  case,  and  it  was  so  held  in  the  State 
of  Minnesota  by  Judge  Lochren. 

Mr.  GROUT.  That  has  been  done  by  one  or  two  circuit  or  district 
judges  certainly,  and  in  some  of  the  State  courts,  but  I  thought  it 
well  to  refer  only  to  the  court  of  last  resort,  the  Supreme  Court,  not 
wishing  to  take  time  to  go  into  the  details.  It  is  true  this  decision 
has  already  been  brought  in  question  by  some  decisions  of  subordinate 
courts. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Let  me  ask  a  question.  Did  the  case  to  which  you 
refer  go  off  on  the  ground  that  the  property,  having  gone  into  Massa- 
chusetts and  become  mingled  with  the  property  there,  at  the  end  of 
transit  is  subject  to  the  police  regulation  of  the  State? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Precisely.  It  is  the  police  power  of  the  State  which 
gives  this  right  to  take  charge  of  the  article. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Do  you  know  that  there  is  a  decision  which  holds 
that  Congress  may  abdicate  its  power  to  control  interstate  commerce 
to  the  State? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  sir;  there  is  such  a  decision,  under  what  is  known 
as  the  Wilson  law.  The  Wilson  law  was  passed  to  overcome  what  was 
known  as  the  original  package  decision,  and  there  is  a  decision  by  the 
Supreme  Court  in  a  case  coming  up  from  the  State  of  South  Carolina 
under  the  constabulary  act  of  that  State,  or  whatever  name  it  went  by, 
in  which  it  is  held  that  that  power  could  be  passed  to  the  States.  I 
am  not  able  now  to  name  the  case,  but  I  have  examined  it. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Under  the  Iowa  liquor  law  originally  the  court 
held  that  liquors  which  went  in  original  packages  were  not  subject  to 
State  regulation. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Certainly;  that  was  the  original  package  decision.  The 
Wilson  law  conferred  power  on  the  States  to  take  charge  of  it. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Mr.  Wilson  introduced  a  bill,  which  became  a  law, 
remitting  that  power  to  the  States.  Has  that  act  itself  been  passed 
upon? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  passed  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court  in 
thejjase  from  South  Carolina,  already  referred  to,  the  opinion  having 


OLEOMAKGAEINE.  5 

been  delivered  by  Mr.  Justice  White,  as  1  remember,  in  which  the 
authority  of  State  law  is  recognized.  So  there  can  be  no  question  on 
that  score,  I  think. 

This  feature  of  the  bill  has  been  pending  in  the  two  Houses  for 
several  years.  I  introduced  the  first  section  of  the  bill  in  the  House 
six  or  eight  years  ago,  certainly,  and  four  years  ago  this  very  winter, 
I  think,  the  first  section  of  the  bill  passed  the  House.  I  am  speaking 
now  of  the  first  section  of  the  present  bill.  It  passed  the  House  and 
came  to  the  Senate,  but  was  not  acted  upon  by  this  body. 

In  addition  to  that,  there  is  the  second  section  of  the  bill,  which  puts 
a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  on  all  oleomargarine  made  in  imitation  of 
butter,  and  reduces  the  present  tax  of  2  cents  per  pound  to  one-fourth 
of  1  cent  a  pound  on  all  that  is  left  in  its  natural,  uncolored  state. 
The  great  objection  thus  far  to  this  bill  has  been  to  the  second  section. 
Very  few  complain  of  the  first  section,  but  it  is  to  the  second  section 
that  objection  is  principally  leveled. 

I  am  not  going  into  any  long  statement  here.  Read  the  testimony 
which  we  have  submitted,  and  you  will  see  that  the  testimony  is 
abundant  on  all  sides  that  oleomargarine  is  sold  constantly  for  butter. 
You  will  learn  from  that  testimony  that  the  manufacturers  arrange 
with  the  retailers  to  sell  it — they  do  not  say  as  butter  in  their  circulars, 
but  to  sell  it.  They  know  very  well  that  the  retailer  will  sell  it  for 
butter — that  is  a  part  of  the  programme — but  he  is  to  sell  it,  and  they 
will  stand  between  him  and  all  State  laws  for  payment  of  fines,  costs, 
and  damages,  this  being  substantially  the  language  used  in  their 
circulars.  You  will  find  that  in  the  printed  hearings  before  the  House 
committee.  There  is  no  question  about  this.  They  in  fact  make  no 
reply  to  it,  or  have  thus  far  made  no  reply,  and  I  presume  they  will 
not  undertake  to  do  so. 

Only  a  small  portion  of  oleomargarine  relatively,  however,  as  I 
believe,  is  really  sold  through  the  retailers.  There  are  no  statistics 
on  the  subject,  because  it  is  a  matter  wholly  within  the  knowledge  of 
the  manufacturers.  The  great  body  of  it  is  worked  off  through  hotel 
keepers  and  restaurant  and  boarding-house  keepers,  who  buy  directly 
of  the  manufacturers;  if  not,  perhaps  they  buy  of  some  intermediary 
wholesale  dealer  this  stuff,  and  palm  it  off  upon  their  guests  as  butter. 
The  great  share,  I  believe,  of  the  article  is  marketed  in  that  way. 

Now,  the  oleomargarine  men  claim,  or  have  claimed,  that  they  are 
not  parties  to  this  fraud,  that  persons  buying  it  know  just  what  it  is. 
This  is  undoubtedly  true  of  the  hotel  man  and  the  restaurant  and 
boarding-house  keeper.  They  know  what  they  are  buying,  but  the 
manufacturer  knows  that  they  intend  to  palm  it  off  on  their  guests 
as  butter.  There  is  no  question  about  this,  and  it  makes  them,  morally 
at  least,  parties  to  the  fraud. 

Senator  ALLEN.  How  are  you  going  to  sustain  the  constitutionality 
of  the  second  section? 

Mr.  GROUT.  In  what  respect,  if  you  please,  sir? 

Senator  ALLEN.  In  respect  to  its  being  a  tax  to  destroy  an  industry. 

Mr.  GROUT.  The  decisions  are  all  one  way,  as  undoubtedly  the  Sen- 
ator knows.  You  may  go  back  to  an  early  decision  by  Chief  Justice 
Marshall,  in  which  the  Supreme  Court  denied  itself  the  power  to 
inquire  into,  "to  review,"  to  use  the  language  of  that  authority,  the 
discretionary  power  of  the  legislature  to  tax.  The  tax  must  be  laid 
alike,  of  course,  upon  the  same  class  of  articles.  The  legislative  power 


6  OLEOMARGARINE. 

may,  in  its  discretion,  single  out  one  thing  and  tax  it  and  leave  another 
un taxed;  but  wherever  you  levy  a  tax  it  must  be  levied  uniformly  on 
the  same  class  of  articles.  The  courts  insist  upon  uniformity,  but 
they  never  question  the  discretionary  power  lodged  with  the  legisla- 
tive body  to  impose  the  tax. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  know  of  but  one  precedent  for  this  proposed  legis- 
lation, and  that  is  the  taxation  of  State  bank  issues. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Exactly.  That  is  a  notable  instance,  the  rankest 
instance  probably,  our  opponents  would  say,  that  has  ever  been  fur- 
nished of  the  exercise  of  the  power  to  tax  out  of  existence. 

Mr.  HOARD.  In  addition  to  the  State  bank  tax,  there  is  the  tax  on 
filled  cheese  and  adulterated  flour. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  to  be  sure,  and  along  the  same  line  of  this  pro- 
ceeding. The  power  to  tax  and  tax  out  of  existence  is  unquestioned, 
as  I  believe,  gentlemen.  The  only  question  which  the  court  ever 
inquires  into  is  whether  the  tax  is  laid  evenly,  uniformly,  upon  the 
class  of  articles  which  it  proposes  to  deal  with.  It  may  select  a  single 
thing  and  tax  it  and  leave  another  thing  untaxed.  That  is  according 
to  the  discretion  of  the  legislative  power.  The  cure  for  any  wrong  in 
this  respect  is  with  the  constituency.  If  an  unjust  tax  be  imposed,  the 
people  will  send  men  here  who  will  exercise  better  discretion. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  court  can  not  inquire  into  the  motive  of  the 
legislative  department;  but  if  that  motive  is  apparent  upon  the  face  of 
the  act,  then  it  does  enter  into  the  litigation  and  become  a  part  of  the 
construction  of  the  act. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes;  but  they  do  not,  then,  even  give  it  effect  to  the 
extent  of  setting  aside  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  tax.  How  could 
it  have  been  otherwise  than  that  the  intent  was  apparent  in  the  law 
taxing  State  banks? 

Senator  ALLEN.  Suppose  it  is  apparent  on  the  face  of  this  bill  that 
the  motive  for  imposing  the  tax  is  to  destroy  the  thing  taxed  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  We  deny  this.     We  say  that  is  not  the  motive. 

Senator  ALLEN.   What  would  be  the  rule,  then  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  do  not  think  it  would  change  it  a  particle.  Judge 
Collamer,  up  in  our  State,  who  was  a  Senator  with  you  gentlemen,  and 
held  a  high  place  when  in  this  body — the  very  first  in  his  time,  as  tradi- 
tion will  tell  you,  and  as  discussions  will  disclose  if  you  turn  to  them— 
Judge  Collamer,  on  the  bench  up  in  Vermont,  said  you  could  not  inquire 
into  the  motive  by  which  one  did  a  legal  act;  and  that  I  understand  to 
be  good  law  everywhere. 

Senator  ALLEN.  That  is  true;  but  suppose  the  motive  is  apparent 
upon  the  act  itself? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Very  well;  the  motive  makes  no  difference,  providing 
the  act  be  legal,  and  here  unquestionably  the  act  is  legal. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Then  you  must  take  into  consideration  the  motive, 
because  it  is  a  part  of  the  act? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Well,  I  have  expressed  to  the  committee  my  views  on 
this  subject,  but  let  me  say  it  is  not  the  purpose  here  to  tax  out  of 
existence.  The  object  of  this  second  section  is  to  prevent  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  as  butter,  to  prevent  a  fraud.  And  we  say  that  is  the 
only  rational  construction  which  can  be  given,  because  if  the  purpose 
of  the  section  was  to  destroy  the  article  it  would  not  provide  as  it  does 
in  the  closing  clause  for  a  small  tax,  the  least  possible  tax,  on  the 


OLEOMARGAEINE.  7 

uncolored  article.  It  might  be  made  still  less,  if  the  legislative  power 
thought  best  to  do  so,  although  I  do  not  think  it  ought  to  be  less,  for 
it  ought  to  be  large  enough  to  cover  the  cost  of  policing  the  business. 
Now,  when  it  reduces  the  tax  to  the  lowest  possible  limit,  so  that  oleo 
undisguised  can  go  to  the  consumer  at  the  cheapest  possible  price,  who 
can  fairly  say  that  this  second  section  is  intended  to  destiw  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine?  No,  instead  of  destroying,  it  encourages 
the  manufacture  of  the  honest  article.  All  that  it  seeks  to  destroy  is 
the  fraud  that  is  perpetrated  when  it  is  colored  like  butter. 

It  may  stop  its  sale  as  butter  and  yet  not  go  to  the  extent  of  pre- 
venting its  manufacture,  as  1  will  show  you  a  little  later.  The  profit 
on  the  sale  of  104,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  and  a  little  more, 
last  year,  fairly  estimated,  must  have  been  anywhere  from  $13,000,000 
to  $15,000,000 — thirteen  to  fifteen  million  dollars  between  the  cost  of 
the  article  and  the  price  paid  by  the  consumer. 

Some  oleomargarine  friend  present  smiles — I  hear  a  smile — but  such 
is  the  case,  disguise  the  matter  the  best  they  can.  But  we  will,  to  accom- 
modate the  gentleman's  state  of  mind,  call  the  profit  $12,000,000,  or  any 
large  sum  you  please  along  there;  it  can  not  be  less  than  that  amount, 
as  it  costs  but  9  cents  per  pound,  tax  paid,  and  the  consumer  pays 
anywhere  from  18  to  30  cents  per  poun4  for  it.  Call  it  22  cents,  and 
for  104,000,000  pounds  it  would  amount  to  $22,880,000.  Take  from 
this  $9,360,000,  cost  of  production,  and  you  have  left  $13,520,000 
profit.  But  call  it  $12,000,000  for  safety,  if  you  please.  Remember 
this  stuff  is  sold  as  butter  almost  exclusively  to  the  consumer;  that  is, 
the  consumer  takes  it  supposing  it  is  butter.  The  guest  at  table  eats 
it  and  pays  his  $5  a  day  to  the  hotel.  It  passes  with  him  as  butter  and 
he  pays  the  price  of  butter.  The  same  is  true  at  the  restaurant  and 
the  boarding  house.  And  the  retailer  everywhere  sells  it  as  butter  and 
for  the  price  of  butter. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Is  not  that  a  subject  of  police  regulation  in  the 
State? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes;  but  we  have  got  a  regulation  here  in  this  second 
section  which  transcends  police  regulations,  and,  if  the  Senator  will 
allow  me  a  moment,  I  will  make  it  plain  to  him. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Can  you  do  that? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Oh,  yes,  sir,  in  the  way  we  propose  to  do  it  here,  as  I 
believe. 

Here  are  the  large  profits  of  which  I  have  spoken.  1  might  go  more 
into  details,  but  I  feel  that  I  must  not  detain  the  committee.  I  intended 
to  be  very  brief  when  I  began,  and  I  will  now  be  as  brief  as  possible. 
The  profits  are  what  I  have  indicated,  twelve  or  thirteen  million  dollars 
annually.  If  you  put  a  10-cent  tax  on  104,000,000  pounds  of  oleo- 
margarine, that  will  make  $10,400,000  the  manufacturer  would  have 
to  pay  before  he  could  put  the  stuff  afloat.  And  this  would  so  reduce 
the  profits  that  it  would  take  away  the  inducement  to  enter  into  the 
fraudulent  practices  now  resorted  to  to  work  it  off  as  butter.  It  would 
reduce  the  profits  $10,400,000. 

If  it  be  true,  however,  as  the  oleomargarine  crowd  claim,  that 
people  really  prefer  oleomargarine  to  butter  and  they  desire  to  have 
it  colored,  that  large  numbers  of  the  middle  class  of  people  prefer  it 
to  butter — that  is  the  way  one  circular  puts  it — if  that  be  true,  it  can 
be  colored  and  sold  to  those  people  for  oleomargarine  at  just  about 
the  price  it  is  fraudulently  sold  now  for  butter;  so  they  can  have  it  at 


8  OLEOMARGARINE. 

a  price  not  exceeding  the  present  cost.  But  this  is  not  true,  and  I 
believe  this  10-cent  tax  on  the  colored  article  will  stop  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  for  butter  by  making  the  business  unprofitable. 

Senator  WARREN.  Would  it  disturb  you  if  I  should  ask  you  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Not  at  all,  if  the  committee  wish  to  delay  the  hearing 
for  this  talk  by  me. 

Senator  WARREN.  The  bill  proposes  to  tax  oleomargarine  10  cents 
a  pound  when  it  is  colored  in  imitation  of  butter.  Is  there  any  estab- 
lished color  that  butter  has  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  yellow. 

Senator  WARREN.  And  always  the  same  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  The  world  over  and  through  all  time  it  has  been  yel- 
low— varying  shades  of  yellow. 

Senator  WARREN.  Is  it  always  the  same? 

Mr.  GROUT.  No;  not  always  the  same  shade,  but  always  yellow — the 
cow  colors  it  yellow. 

Senator  WARREN.  Is  it  the  same  color  at  different  seasons  of  the 
year? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Oh,  no,  it  varies;  but  it  is  yellow,  different  shades  of 
yellow  at  different  seasons  of  the  year. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Depending  on  the  condition  of  the  cow? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  sir;  but  there  is  no  cow  so  poor  nor  fed  so  poorly 
in  all  the  world,  I  believe,  but  that  the  butter  made  from  the  cream 
of  her  milk  would  be  yellow  in  some  degree;  I  do  not  say  highly  yel- 
low, but  1  say  yellow. 

Senator  WARREN.  If  that  were  the  case  there  would  not  then  be 
any  necessity  of  coloring  butter  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  there  is,  because  many  people  want  it  a  little  yel- 
lower than  the  cow  at  some  seasons  of  the  year  makes  it.  Many  people 
think  it  tastes  better.  There  is  a  demand  in  certain  localities  to  have 
it  colored  a  little,  and  in  some  places  more  than  a  little,  and  butter 
makers  have  to  cater  to  the  taste  of  their  customers.  I  did  not  intend 
to  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  this  color  question,  but  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  do  so  if  the  committee  wish  to  hear  me.  There  is  much 
that  can  be  said  about  it. 

Senator  WARREN.  One  question  more.  When  in  New  England,  say 
in  Vermont,  at  this  time  of  the  year  and  from  now  until,  say,  April  1, 
a  farmer  has  one  or  two  or  three  cows  and  is  making  butter,  what  is 
the  color  of  that  butter  if  it  is  not  colored  with  anything  except  the 
milk  which  comes  from  the  cow  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  It  is  yellow,  but  not  as  yellow  as  when  the  cow  is  fed 
on  grass  in  June.  Then,  too,  it  would  be  yellower  if  the  cow  were 
were  well  fed  during  the  winter — fed  on  corn  meal,  shorts,  and  early- 
cut  hay,  and  the  like — and  kept  in  a  healthy  condition. 

Senator  WARREN.  I  ask  for  information  whether  oleomargarine  is 
colored  different  shades  at  different  seasons  of  the  year  to  follow  the 
different  shades  of  butter  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  sir;  these  very  circulars  to  which  I  have  alluded 
disclose  that  fact.  You  will  find  them  in  this  printed  report  here. 
They  do  that  very  thing,  sir,  to  meet  the  varying  shades  of  butter. 
That  is  one  of  the  tricks  of  the  trade.  They  are  up  to  it,  Senator, 
clear  up  to  it,  you  may  be  sure;  and  they  are  up  to  every  other  pos- 
sible scheme  that  ingenuity  can  devise  to  work  this  stuff  off  for  but- 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  9 

ter.  But  if  you  will  put  this  10-cent  tax  on  it  and  stop  coloring  it 
like  butter  the  game  will  then  be  up. 

Senator  FOSTER.  They  put  on  a  June  color  or  a  December  color? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  it  exactly.  They  advertise  to  do  it  and 
they  do  it  with  neatness  and  dispatch.  They  say  in  these  circulars, 
which  you  will  find  in  the  printed  testimony,  that  they  will  give  it 
just  such  color  as  may  be  wanted. 

Senator  WARREN.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  butter  made  naturally  from 
the  milk  of  cows  will  vary  at  different  times  of  the  year  almost  as  much 
as  the  difference  between  the  color  of  that  desk  and  the  color  of  this 
sheet  of  paper.  If  that  is  so,  where  is  your  guard  against  coloring 
oleomargarine? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Safety  consists  in  the  fact  that  oleo  is  white.  But  the 
Senator  will  not  seriously  claim  that  the  color  of  butter  varies  as  much 
as  indicated  by  him — 

Senator  WARREN.  But  in  imitation  butter,  as  to  what  degree? 

Mr.  GROUT.  They  are  not  to  color  it  at  all. 

Senator  WARREN.  It  must  be  purely  white  ? 

Mr.  GrouT.  Yes,  sir;  it  must  be  white  or  some  other  color  than  but- 
ter. The  bill,  if  law,  will  prevent  its  assuming  the  color  of  butter — 
that  is  the  only  object — so  that  it  can  not  go  forth  and  practice  these 
frauds.  The  closing  clause  in  the  section  puts  the  tax  so  low  that  it 
enables  pure  oleo,  without  disguise,  to  go  at  the  cheapest  possible  price 
to  the  consumer,  and  he  can  get  it  for  10  or  11  cents  a  pound  with  great 
profit  to  the  manufacturer  and  a  fair  profit  to  the  retailer,  who  will 
then  do  an  honest  business. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Suppose  a  man  says  from  choice  that  he  wants  to 
use  oleomargarine,  but  he  wants  it  colored,  has  he  not  that  right? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  he  has  the  right,  and  let  him  color  it  himself  if 
he  wants  to  be  to  that  trouble.  But  the  legislative  power,  to  prevent 
fraud,  has  a  right  to  intervene  and  say  that  it  shall  not  take  a  color 
which  is  calculated  to  produce  fraud,  and  then  put  it  on  the  market, 
even  though  it  contravenes  the  taste  of  some  gentlemen. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Do  you  think  it  is  within  the  legislative  power  to 
compel  all  butter  to  be  colored,  December  butter,  for  instance  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  1  do  not  think  Congress  will  ever  enter  that  field.  If 
it  does,  and  I  am  here,  I  will  then  enter  on  the  discussion  of  that 
question. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Suppose  Congress  should  pass  a  law  that  no  Decem- 
ber butter  should  be  sold  unless  it  were  colored  as  June  butter.  Do 
you  think  that  would  be  within  the  power  of  Congress? 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  do  not  quite  see  how  Congress  would  get  jurisdiction 
of  the  question.  We  would  not,  certainly,  unless  it  could  be  made 
clear  that  some  fraud  was  to  be  perpetrated,  and  took  jurisdiction  by 
the  taxing  power  in  some  way.  We  might  do  it  then,  but  otherwise 
we  could  not  take  jurisdiction  of  it. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Suppose  the  article  is  stamped  as  oleomargarine. 
Do  you  then  contend  that  it  is  within  the  power  of  Congress  to  con- 
demn the  article  or  to  give  it  a  particular  color  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  No;  we  are  not  asking  you  to  give  it  any  particular 
color.  We  are  only  asking  that  you  make  so  expensive  the  coloring  of 
this  stuff  like  butter  as  to  leave  no  temptation  to  so  color  it  and  fraud- 
ulently sell  it  as  butter. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  want  to  prevent  fraud  ? 


10  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  GROUT.  That  is  it  exactly.  Pass  this  bill  and  I  believe  you 
will  stop  this  great  fraud — the  greatest  the  world  has  ever  known  in 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  a  food  product.  Do  this  and  you  will 
have  the  thanks  of  the  millions  of  hard-working  men  and  women  who 
make  honest  butter,  and  the  thanks  also  of  the  millions  on  millions 
more  who  want  to  eat  honest  butter. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  thank  you  for 
your  kind  attention. 

ORDER  OF   PROCEDURE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  obliged  to  attend  a  meeting  of  the  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs,  and  I  will  ask  Senator  Hansbrough  to  preside 
while  I  am  away.  I  may  say  before  going  that  I  am  sure  it  is  the 
desire  of  the  committee  to  give  all  interests  a  fair  hearing,  but  we 
wish  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  we  are  very  busy — busy  without  prec- 
edent, almost,  at  this  time — with  the  measures  before  Congress,  and 
we  hope  you  will  make  your  statements  as  concise  and  brief  as  possi- 
ble and,  so  far  as  possible,  not  repeat  what  is  already  before  us.  The 
testimony  given  in  the  House  is  before  us,  and  it  will  be  received  on 
both  sides.  That  is  all  1  need  to  say. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  May  I  say  a  word  before  the  chairman  retires? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  remain,  and  the  hearing  will 
continue. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Owing  to  the  lack  of  opportunity  we  have  had  to 
prepare  for  this  hearing,  I  desire  to  express  the  hope  that  we  may  be 
allowed  to  present  our  case  at  a  somewhat  later  date.  The  parties 
whom  I  represent  have  never  had  an  opportunity  to  appear  before  any 
committee  with  reference  to  this  subject.  They  were  informed  of  this 
meeting  very  recently  for  the  first  time.  They  feel  that  they  come 
here  to-day  utterly  unprepared,  and  they  are  most  anxious  that  they 
shall  have  an  opportunity  to  present  their  view  to  the  committee  after 
a  reasonable  preparation  may  have  been  made. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  try  to  be  reasonable  and  fair. 
I  can  not  speak  about  that  definitely.  You  represent  the  oleomarga- 
rine interest? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  represent  simply  one,  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing 
Company,  of  Providence,  R.  I. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  J  wired  you  Wednesday  morning,  did  I  not? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Yes;  some  time  during  the  week. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  I  wired  you  Wednesday  morning.  That 
gave  you  just  a  week's  notice.  We  hope  that  we  may  get  through 
with  the  hearing  speedily,  because  after  the  holidays  we  shall  be 
extremely  busy.  It  is  for  your  advantage  to  have  the  hearing  as 
early  as  possible,  because  after  the  holidays  it  will  probably  be  a  very 
small  subcommittee  that  we  could  get  together.  So,  in  order  to  have 
the  hearing  by  the  entire  committee,  the  earlier  the  better,  and  we 
shall  determine  as  we  go  along  when  we  must  close.  But  I  merely 
want  to  urge  you  to  be  as  expeditious  as  possible. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  May  I  ask,  Senator,  whether  you  intend  to  continue 
this  investigation  from  day  to  day  during  the  holiday  recess  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly,  if  necessary.  I  expect  to  be  here  most 
of  the  time  and  some  members  of  the  committee  will  be  here  all  the 
time.  I  think  probably  we  could  have  fuller  meetings  during  the  recess 
than  afterwards. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  11 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  ask  if  there  has  been 
any  arrangement  whereby  a  limit  is  placed  on  the  hearing? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  has  not  been  any,  and  in  the  notice  1  sent  out 
1  said  that  we  would  hear  gentlemen  to-day,  and  to-morrow,  and  the 
next  day. 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  simply  want  to  say,  gentlemen,  that  with  this  testi 
mony  the  friends  of  the  bill  submit  their  case,  and  give  the  field  to 
those  who  are  opposed  to  the  measure. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Senator  Hansbrough).  It  is  understood  that 
Governor  Hoard  is  present  and  desires  to  be  heard. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  W.  D.  HOARD. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  nothing  to  submit  at  the  present 
time.  I  think  it  only  fair  that  the  men  who  are  opposed  to  this  legis- 
lation should  have  the  time.  The  proponents  of  the  bill  have  had  their 
say  before  the  House.  I  am  astonished  to  hear  one  gentleman  say  that 
he  has  had  no  chance  to  appear  before  any  committee,  because  this  bill 
occupied  two  months  last  winter  before  the  House  Committee  on 
Agriculture. 

1  will  only  add  that  the  bill  is  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the 
counterfeiting  of  food,  so  far  as  the  constitutional  power  of  the  Federal 
Government  can  go.  The  Federal  Government  is  limited  in  its  con- 
stitutional power.  It  has  no  right  to  enact  prohibition.  It  has  no 
police  power.  Those  things  vou  are  as  well  aware  of  as  I  am.  But  it 
has  taken  ground  upon  certain  lines,  like  the  taxation  of  State  banks 
in  the  interest  of  a  sound  currency. 

We  believe  this  is  a  taxation  of  a  counterfeit  and  a  fraud  in  the 
interest  of  fair  dealing,  in  the  interest  of  the  consumer,  and  in  the 
interest  of  the  producer.  Here  is  a  great  army,  between  five  and  six 
million  men,  in  this  nation  who  are  engaged  in  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant branches  of  agriculture.  Here  is  another  great  army  of  consum- 
ers who  are  being  defrauded  and  imposed  upon.  The  one  is  being 
swindled  out  of  his  rightful  market  and  the  other  out  of  his  property, 
and  they  are  both  imposed  upon  by  a  fraud  and  a  counterfeit. 

The  question  was  raised  whether  it  is  not  just  as  lawful  to  color 
oleomargarine  as  it  is  to  color  butter.  No.  In  one  case  the  question 
of  color  is  a  matter  of  taste.  In  the  other  it  is  a  matter  of  fraud,  a 
vehicle  of  deception.  In  no  instance  is  the  coloring  of  butter  a  vehicle 
of  deception. 

I  had  a  distinguished  member  of  the  other  House  ask  me  if  butter 
was  not  colored  in  winter  to  make  the  consumer  believe  that  it  was 
made  last  June.  That  gentleman  was  a  student  of  maxims,  not  of 
markets.  The  cheapest  and  poorest  butter  in  winter  is  that  made  last 
June.  The  highest-priced  butter  is  that  which  is  not  over  ten  days 
old  and  faultless  in  character  and  flavor.  In  the  butter  scores  at  all 
dairy  fairs  and  conventions  you  will  find  in  a  scale  of  100  that  flavor 
takes  50,  color,  5.  It  is  a  question  of  taste  with  the  consumer. 
Senator  Allen  appears  here  with  a  woolen  suit  of  clothes  colored  black. 
It  is  a  question  of  taste  with  him.  He  would  not  wear  that  suit  in  its 
original  color  for  any  reason  except  that  of  taste.  It  was  not  colored 
black  to  make  him  believe  it  was  silk,  or  that  it  was  linen  or  cotton. 
It  was  simply  colored  to  suit  his  taste;  that  is  all.  So  it  is  with  the 


12  OLEOMARGARINE. 

coloring  of  butter.  There  is  a  market  demand,  a  demand  of  the  con- 
sumer, which  compels  the  producer  to  adapt  himself  and  cater  in  that 
particular,  as  the  maker  of  fabrics  has  to  do. 

So,  as  I  said,  in  one  case  the  matter  of  color  is  a  question  simply  of 
taste,  without  any  change  whatever  in  the  mind  of  the  consumer  or  in 
the  character  of  the  product. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Governor,  will  you  permit  me  to  ask  you  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  Certainly. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Why  does  the  prudent  farmer,  ordinarily  in  June, 
endeavor  to  put  down  enough  butter  to  carry  him  through  the  winter 
for  his  own  use? 

Mr.  HOARD.  Senator,  that  is  not  done  at  the  present  time  to  any 
appreciable  extent. 

Senator  ALLEN.  It  has  been  done  ever  since  I  was  a  boy. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  may  have  been  done  when  you  were  a  boy  and  when 
I  was  a  boy.  As  to  that,  you  are  right,  but  at  the  present  time  the 
whole  system  of  butter  making  is  changed.  Not  one  man  puts  down 
butter  in  June  for  the  next  winter,  where  10,000  did  it  forty  years 
ago.  This  wonderful  change  has  come  through  the  organization  of 
creameries,  where  now  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  best  butter  is 
made. 

That  is  the  only  thing  I  have  to  submit  at  the  present  time.  I  do 
not  think  it  is  fair  to  take  the  time  of  these  gentlemen  who 'are  desir- 
ous of  being  heard,  and  what  I  may  have  to  say  I  hope  to  have  an 
opportunity,  if  granted,  to  submit  at  a  subsequent  meeting  of  the 
committee.  I  thank  you,  gentlemen,  for  your  kind  attention. 

OPPONENTS   OF   THE   BILL. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  1  should  like  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  the 
number  of  gentlemen  here  who  desire  to  be  heard  on  the  other  side, 
and  about  the  length  of  time  they  would  want  to  consume. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  represent  the  Ohio  Butterine  Fac- 
tory, of  Cincinnati. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  the  only  one  here  in  the  interest 
of  that  institution  ? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  am  the  only  one  here  in  the  interest  of  that  institu- 
tion, and  that  institution  came  into  existence  the  same  day  that  the 
Grout  bill  passed  the  House.  We  certainly  have  not  had  any  chance 
to  be  heard.  But  I  do  not  want  to  take  the  time  of  this  committee  at 
all  myself  if  some  one  representing  identical  interests  can  cover  the 
ground  better  than  I  can.  However,  I  want  time  to  unite  our  forces, 
to  get  together  and  select  one  man  to  present  our  side  of  the  question. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  the  desire  of  the 
committee  to  traverse  the  ground  that  has  been  covered  by  the  hear- 
ings in  the  House. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  understand  that. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  possible  it  is  desired  to  avoid  doing  that, 
and  I  simply  desire  to  ascertain  how  many  gentlemen  are  here  now 
who  wish  to  be  heard  in  opposition  to  the  bill  and  how  much  time  they 
desire  to  take.  We  have  heard  from  one  gentleman  who  wishes  to  be 
heard  on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  1  represent  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing  Company,  of 


OLEOMARGARINE.  13 

Providence,  R.  I.,  which  desires  to  be  heard.  I  shall  endeavor  to  be 
as  brief  as  I  possibly  can,  but  owing  to  lack  of  time  for  preparation  I 
can  not  be  as  brief  to-day  as  I  could  be  after  the  holidays. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  other  gentlemen  here  who 
wish  to  be  heard? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  wish  to  be  heard,  representing  the  Vermont 
Manufacturing  Company,  of  Providence,  R.  I. ,  and  I  assure  you  if  I 
do  speak  I  will  not  go  over  the  ground,  or  at  least  while  I  may  go  over 
the  ground  I  will  not  present  the  same  facts  or  perhaps  the  same  argu- 
ments that  were  used  in  the  House.  I  did  not  appear  before  the 
House  committee.  I  did  not  have  any  opportunity  to  do  so. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  ready  to  go  on  now? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  am  not  ready  to  go  on  this  morning,  but  Mr. 
Gardner  is,  I  understand,  ready  to  speak  this  morning  if  it  is  the 
desire  that  he  shall  proceed  at  this  time,  though  he  has  not  had  that 
opportunity  for  preparation  that  he  wished. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  heard  from  three  gentlemen  who 
are  present  and  who  desire  to  be  heard.  Are  there  others? 

Senator  ALLEN.  Does  not  the  gentleman  sitting  by  you,  Mr.  Gardner, 
desire  to  be  heard  ? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Gardner  will  represent  me. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  wish  to  add  that  I  have  not  had  a  chance  to  go  over 
what  was  presented  to  the  House,  and  I  do  not  know  what  is  before 
the  committee.  I  will  put  in  every  minute  of  my  time  in  preparation. 

Senator  BATE.  You  are  the  only  one  representing  your  interest? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  am  the  only  one  representing  it  on  this  side. 

Senator  BATE.  We  can  probably  hear  you  now. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  If  the  same  arguments  that  I  would  advance  appear  in 
the  hearing  in  the  House  I  would  have  nothing  to  say.  All  I  want  is 
time  to  prepare. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  think  we  ought  to  have  the  hearing  and  be  pre- 
pared to  report  the  bill  promptly  upon  the  meeting  of  Congress  after 
the  holidays. 

Senator  BATE.  I  do  not  think  we  can  do  that.  Telegrams  are  com- 
ing here  from  gentlemen  who  want  to  be  heard  after  the  holidays. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  shall  have  to  decline  to  sit  here  and 
listen  to  arguments  the  balance  of  the  session.  Mr.  Springer  will  be 
heard  now. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  yesterday  received  a  telegram  from  the  president 
of  the  National  Live  Stock  Association  of  the  United  States,  asking  me 
to  appear  before  this  committee  in  behalf  of  the  live-stock  interests  of 
the  whole  country  to  oppose  the  passage  of  the  bill.  I  received  this 
notice  only  yesterday  afternoon  and  it  was  received  by  telegram,  and 
I  will  receive  a  written  communication  probably  by  to-morrow  morn- 
ing, giving  some  of  the  views  and  interests  that  that  association  desires 
to  have  presented  to  this  committee. 

I  will  state  that  I  am  not  aware  that  that  association  appeared  in  any 
capacity  before  the  House  committee.  I  have  not  had  a  chance  to 
examine  all  its  hearings  yet,  but  I  will  do  so  at  once  and,  if  I  find  that 
they  have  presented  their  views  there  in  any  way  I  will  not  desire  to 
go  over  that  ground  again.  I  do  not  think  they  have  been  heard. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  represent  a  live-stock  association  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  All  the  live-stock  associations. 

Senator  FOSTER.  The  National  Live  Stock  Association  ? 


14  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  All  the  live-stock  associations  of  the  whole  country. 
I  represent  every  live-stock  interest  in  the  country. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Who  is  the  president  of  the  live-stock  associa- 
tion? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  John  W.  Springer,  of  Dallas,  Tex. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  say  that  you  represent  all  the  live-stock  associa- 
tions ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  All  who  are  embodied  in  the  live-stock  association. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  do  not  represent  the  Holstein  and  Friesian 
Association  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No;  1  do  not.  However,  the  association  that  I 
represent  embodies  the  large  majority  of  the  live-stock  interests  in  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  knew  that  the  Holstein  and  Friesian  Association  were 
here  in  support  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes;  they  are  dairymen.  These  are  people  who 
raise  cattle  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  the  markets  of  the  country 
with  live  stock,  and  it  is  that  association  which  I  desire  to  appear  for 
before  this  committee. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.     Are  you  ready  to  go  on  now? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  As  I  stated  before,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  had  this  notice 
yesterday  afternoon,  and  I  have  not  had  a  chance  yet  to  read  all  the 
testimony.  I  am  going  to  go  over  it  as  rapidly  as  I  can.  I  do  not 
desire  to  ask  for  more  than  a  reasonable  delay.  I  think  an  association 
representing  such  large  interests  as  this  ought  to  be  permitted  to  pre- 
sent their  views,  and  that  there  ought  to  be  at  least  a  reasonable  time 
given  for  that  purpose.  While  1  can  do  so  some  time  during  the  holi- 
days I  could  not  promise  to  do  it  this  week,  because  this  is  now 
Wednesday,  and  I  understand  Senators  are  very  busy  with  matters, 
expecting  to  adjourn  on  Friday,  but  during  the  holday  recess  I  hope 
to  be  able  to  present  to  the  committee  or  a  subcommittee  that  you  may 
appoint  the  views  of  the  association. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  three-quarters  of  an  hour  this 
morning  if  some  gentleman  is  ready  to  go  on  now. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Mr.  Gardner  is  ready,  I  believe. 

STATEMENT  OF  RATHBONE  GARDNER. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  as  ready  perhaps  as  a  gentleman 
can  be  with  f  orty-eight  hours'  preparation,  and  possibly  I  am  as  ready 
as  anyone  else  who  desires  to  be  heard. 

As  I  said,  I  appear  here  representing  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing 
Company,  which  is  a  corporation  engaged  in  the  city  of  Providence,  R.  I. , 
in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine.  I  also  represent  a  large  number 
of  wholesale  and  retail  dealers  in  the  city  of  Providence,  who  sell  oleo- 
margarine, and  who  I  think  are,  perhaps,  a  class  which  has  not  hereto- 
fore been  represented  in  any  hearing  upon  this  bill.  They  are  men 
who  claim  that  they  sell  the  product  honestly  and  absolutely  in  accord- 
ance with  the  requirements  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
State  of  Rhode  Island,  where  they  do  business. 

The  Oakdale  Manufacturing  Company,  as  also  my  other  clients,  feel 
that  an  attack  upon  their  existence  compels  them  to  protest  as  strongly 
as  possible  against  the  passage  of  this  bill.  They  believe  that  the  pas- 
sage of  the  bill  would  absolutely  destroy  their  industry,  and  they 


OLEOMARGARINE.  15 

believe  that  the  proposed  law  is  an  unwarrantable  interference  by  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  with  their  conduct  of  a  legitimate 
business. 

We  protest  against  the  bill,  in  the  first  place,  upon  the  broad  ground 
that  we  consider  it  a  dishonest  act — dishonest  in  purpose,  pretending 
to  be  that  which  it  is  not. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course  you  do  not  desire  to  reflect  on  the 
gentlemen  at  the  other  end  of  the  Capitol  who  have  passed  the  bill? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Not  at  all,  because  one  of  the  representatives  of  the 
gentlemen  at  the  other  end  of  the  Capitol  has  this  morning  expressed 
exactly  what  we  claim  makes  the  bill  dishonest.  He  has  expressed  his 
view  and  his  opinion  that  it  is  a  bill  to  prevent  the  competition  of  colored 
oleo  with  butter,  and  I  think  that  that  purpose  in  a  bill  avowedly  a 
revenue  bill  stamps  it  as  legally  a  dishonest  bill.  I  have,  of  course,  not 
the  slightest  intention  to  reflect  upon  the  motives  of  any  person  who 
advocates  the  bill,  but  it  is  a  bill  which  seeks  to  accomplish  by  indirection 
that  which  Congress  can  not  accomplish  directly. 

It  is  avowedly  a  revenue  measure,  and  in  explanation  of  my  meaning 
I  say  that  it  is  only  as  a  revenue  measure  that  the  second  section  of 
this  act  can  be  considered  and  passed  upon  by  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  only  upon  the  theory  that  it  is  a  revenue  measure 
that  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  can  be  upheld  by  the  courts  of  the 
United  States. 

I  do  not  go  into  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  proposed 
act.  I  have  felt  that  the  act  would  be  pronounced  constitutional  on 
the  same  ground  that  other  acts  which  imposed  a  tax  the  purpose  of 
which  was  really  not  the  collection  of  revenue  have  been  pronounced 
by  the  courts  of  the  United  States  to  be  constitutional.  Upon  the 
same  ground  upon  which  I  think  that  the  oleomargarine  act  of  1886 
has  been  by  the  circuit  court  pronounced  constitutional,  upon  the 
ground  that  the  courts  of  the  United  States  can  not  impugn  the  pur- 
poses, motives  or  intentions  of  the  legislative  body. 

Upon  the  face  of  this  act  it  is  a  revenue  measure.  The  courts  will 
not  say  that,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  this  is  avowedly  a  revenue 
measure,  they  know  from  any  source  that  the  purpose  of  the  act  was  not 
the  collection  of  revenue;  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  legisla- 
tive branch  of  the  Government  in  passing  the  act  to  collect  revenue; 
that  there  is  another  motive  lying  underneath  and  behind  it.  The 
court  does  not  feel  that  it  is  at  liberty  to  do  that;  and  so  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  court  probably  would  hold  to  be  constitutional  any 
measure  which  was  avowedly  a  revenue  measure. 

But,  gentlemen,  I  say  that  this  proposed  act  is  not  honest,  in  that 
sense.  The  promoters  of  the  bill  are  not  acting  sincerely,  because, 
while  they  claim  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  upon  the  ground  that  it 
is  a  revenue  measure,  and  while  every  one  of  us  understands  that  it  can 
only  be  upheld  upon  that  ground,  they  come  here  and  tell  you  with 
perfect  frankness  that  that  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  act;  that  the  act 
has  another  purpose.  The  author  of  the  bill  tells  you  this  morning 
that  the  purpose  is  not  to  destroy  this  industry,  but  that  the  purpose 
is  to  prevent  a  fraud  by  enabling  the  States  to  exercise  their  police 
powers,  or  by  exercising,  as  in  effect  the  bill  does  exercise,  as  I  think 
I  can  show  in  a  moment,  the  police  powers  of  the  State  for  them;  that 
the  purpose  and  intention  of  the  act  is  to  prevent  a  fraud. 

I  maintain  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  no  more  right, 


16  OLEOMARGARINE. 

under  the  guise  of  a  revenue  act,  to  pass  an  act  the  purpose  of  which 
is  to  prevent  a  fraud  than  it  has  to  pass  an  act  the  purpose  of  which  is 
to  destroy  an  industry.  It  is  in  either  case  stepping  outside  of  its 
province.  The  author  of  the  act  has  this  morning  stated  its  purpose. 
An  advocate  of  the  act  in  the  House  stated  its  purpose  in  these  words : 

'  'It  proposes  to  require  the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  to  pay  a  tax 
on  oleomargarine,  colored  as  butter,  large  enough  to  raise  the  expense 
to  the  producer  equal  to  the  expense  of  producing  pure  butter." 

That  is  to  say,  so  far  from  the  purpose  of  this  act  being  the  produc- 
tion of  revenue,  although  that  is  avowedly  its  purpose,  the  purpose  of 
the  act  as  declared  by  its  advocates  is  to  regulate  competition  between 
different  businesses.  The  advocates  of  the  act  come  before  this  com- 
mittee to-day  and  say  that  colored  oleomargarine  enters  into  unfair 
competition  with  colored  butter ;  therefore  they  propose  through  this 
act  to  make  the  production  of  colored  oleomargarine  as  expensive  as  the 
production  of  colored  butter,  and  to  destroy  the  advantage  which  they 
claim  colored  oleomargarine  has  to-day  in  the  markets  of  the  country. 

Now,  that  is  a  purpose  which  is  absolutely  contradictory  of  the  claim 
that  must  be  made  before  Congress  in  asking  them  to  take  action  upon 
this  bill.  It  is  absolutely  contradictory  of  the  claim  which  must  be 
made  before  the  courts  if  this  bill  ever  comes  before  the  courts.  The 
advocates  of  this  measure  frankly  state  that  they  are  seeking  by  this 
act  to  do  something  other  than  what  the  act  purports  to  do. 

The  advocates  of  the  measure  before  the  House  argued  that  this  act 
was  harmless  because  the  legislatures  of  a  large  number  of  the  States 
had  already  adopted  laws  which  prohibited  the  sale  of  colored  oleo- 
margarine within  those  States;  that  they  had  found  themselves  unable 
to  enforce  those  laws;  that  this  law  would  simply  operate  to  make  the 
laws  of  the  different  States  in  that  respect  effective;  and  that  while  it 
was,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  exercise  by  Congress  of  the  police  power 
which  is  reserved  to  the  States,  yet  it  was  a  harmless  exercise,  because 
in  so  many  of  the  States  similar  laws  had  been  adopted.  It  seems  to 
me  that  Congress  has  no  more  right  to  pass  a  law  to  enable  States  to 
enforce  their  own  laws  governing  the  exercise  of  the  police  power, 
under  the  guise  of  a  revenue  bill,  than  it  has  itself  to  try  to  exercise 
that  police  power. 

I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  many  of  the  States 
there  are  no  laws  which  forbid  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  as 
such.  In  the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  in  which  my  client  is  doing  busi- 
ness, colored  oleomargarine  is  allowed  to  be  sold  as  colored  oleomarga 
rine.  The  regulation  of  that  power  of  sale  is  something  which  every 
member  of  this  committee  will  admit  belongs  absolutely  and  solely  to 
the  police  power  of  the  State.  This  proposed  act  of  Congress  comes 
and  says  that  colored  oleomargarine  shall  not  be  sold  within  the  State. 
It  imposes  a  condition  upon  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  which 
absolutely  prohibits  that  sale.  Upon  the  theory  of  the  advocates  of 
the  bill  that  the  passage  of  the  bill  is  to  enforce  the  police  laws  of  the 
States  which  have  enacted  prohibitory  legislation,  it  must  enact  in  effect 
laws  for  those  States  which  have  not  enacted  any  such  prohibitory  leg- 
islation. 

To-day  the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  as  a  dozen  other  of  the  United 
States  which  permit,  in  the  wisdom  of  their  legislatures,  the  sale  of 
this  product,  when  this  bill  is  passed  will  be  disabled  from  having  the 
product  sold  within  the  State,  and  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 


OLEOMARGARINE.  17 

is  directly  exercising  the  police  power  of  the  State.  That  is  true  if 
it  is  true  that  the  effect  of  the  bill  is  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  artificially 
colored  oleomargarine,  and  the  advocates  of  the  measure  claim  that 
that  is  its  effect,  because  they  claim  that  only  by  the  passage  of  the  bill 
can  the  State  laws  now  existing  which  forbid  the  sale  of  colored 
oleomargarine  be  enforced. 

Therefore  I  say  that  this  act  is,  it  seems  to  me,  properly  character- 
ized as  legally  a  dishonest  act,  a  pretense,  an  act  which  seeks  to  do  by 
indirection  what  Congress  can  not  do  directly;  and  while  it  is  upon  its 
face  a  revenue  act,  it  is  avowed  by  its  friends  and  advocates  to  be  an 
act  not  for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
regulating  competition;  an  act  which  enables  Congress  to  exercise  the 
police  power  which  is  reserved  to  the  State. 

If  that  is  true,  that,  it  seems  to  me,  is  sufficient  to  condemn  the  act. 
It  is  utterly  in  violation  of  principle,  and  if  it  is  in  violation  of  prin- 
ciple, then  no  considerations  of  expediency  are  strong  enough  to  justify 
the  passage  of  the  act.  That  is  the  broad  ground  which  we  take. 

But  we  do  claim  much  further  than  that — that  even  though  this  act 
were  justified  on  principle,  if  it  were  not  what  we  claim  it  to  be,  a  sub- 
terfuge, it  is  not  just  or  expedient  in  its  provisions.  As  the  author  of 
the  bill  has  said  this  morning,  the  chief  opposition  to  the  proposed  act 
has  not  come  upon  the  first  section  of  the  bill,  but  the  first  section  of 
the  bill  is  nevertheless  for  certain  reasons  very  objectionable,  and  for 
certain  other  reasons  it  may  in  the  future  be  very  dangerous.  It  may, 
I  believe,  accomplish  what  even  the  advocates  of  the  measure  do  not 
desire  should  be  accomplished. 

Of  course  every  honest  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine,  protests 
against  the  first  section  of  the  act  because  it  places  oleomargarine  in  the 
category  of  those  dangerous  articles  of  food  the  use  of  which  the  State 
by  the  exercise  of  its  police  power  ought  to  regulate  and  does  regu- 
late. We  claim  that  we  make  an  absolutely  healthful  food  product,  a 
food  product  which  more  than  any  other  is  certified  to  be  healthful  and 
wholesome — the  one  food  product,  perhaps,  which  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  makes  it  its  business  to  see  that  it  is  absolutely 
wholesome;  and  we  object  and  protest  against  having  that  product  of 
ours  placed  in  the  category  of  articles  which  justify  the  exercise  of  the 
police  regulations  of  the  different  States. 

But  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  every  member  of  the  committee, 
if  I  may,  to  the  wording  of  the  last  part  of  the  first  section  of  the  act, 
which  reads  as  follows: 

"Provided,  That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  permit  any 
State  to  forbid  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  a  separate 
and  distinctTform,  and  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of 
its  real  character,  free  from  coloration  or  ingredient  that  causes  it  to 
look  like  butter." 

Every  ingredient  of  oleomargarine  causes  it  to  look  like  butter. 
Without  the  use  of  any  artificial  coloring  matter  whatever  oleomarga- 
rine as  it  comes  from  the  factory  looks  like  butter.  It  is  in  its  natural 
state  nearly  white,  and  ordinary  butter  produced  at  most  seasons  of 
the  year  is  in  its  natural  state  almost  white. 

It  may  be  very  well  claimed  under  the  language  of  this  section  that 
this  section  does  permit  any  State  to  make  a  law  forbidding  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  oleomargarine  which  contains  any  ingredient  which 
makes  it  look  like  butter;  and  upon  the  section  as  it  stands  we  know 
S.  Rep.  2043 2 


18  OLEOMARGARINE 

not  how  we  could  meet  a  prosecution  based  upon  a  law  which  forbade 
the  making  of  oleomargarine  to  resemble  butter,  even  though  it  had 
no  coloring  matter  whatever. 

Further  than  that,  there  are  certain  absolutely  essential  ingredients 
of  oleomargarine  which  do  give  it  color.  Oleomargarine  can  not  be 
manufactured  without  the  use  of  oleo  oil,  but  oleo  oil  gives  to  the 
product  a  certain  tint  which  takes  it  off  of  white,  as  1  understand. 
Therefore  oleo  oil  is  an  ingredient  which  to  some  extent,  at  least,  makes 
oleomargarine  look  like  butter.  Jf  a  State,  under  this  authority  of 
Congress,  passes  a  law  which  forbids  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine 
that  contains  any  ingredient  which  makes  it  look  like  butter,  I  do  not 
see  why  they  can  not  institute  prosecutions  and  convict  us  for  manu- 
facturing oleomargarine  which  contains  oleo  oil,  and  such  may  be  the 
result,  if  it  is  not  the  purpose,  of  the  bill. 

Then  there  is  cotton  seed  oil.  There  are  other  ingredients,  as  I  am 
informed,  all  of  which  have  some  slight  tendency  to  give  a  shade  of 
color  to  the  substance.  So  if  this  bill  is  acted  upon  it  should  be  drawn 
in  such  a  manner  as  simply  to  forbid,  or  to  enable  the  States  to  forbid, 
the  artificial  coloring  of  oleomargarine,  and  these  very  dangerous  pro- 
visions with  reference  to  the  ingredients  of  the  substance  should  be 
omitted. 

It  is  to  the  second  section  of  the  bill,  or  to  the  bill  as  a  whole,  that  we 
chiefly  object,  and  we  object  upon  different  grounds.  I  do  not  desire 
to  cover,  and  will  not,  so  far  as  I  am  able,  cover  any  of  the  ground 
which  has  been  covered  in  the  hearings  before  the  House  committee, 
although  this  matter  has  been  brought  to  my  attention  "within  a  time 
which  has  rendered  it  utterly  impossible  for  me  to  know  exactly  what 
has  been  'presented  in  the  House.  But  we  claim  that  there  are  abso- 
lutely no  conditions  existing  to-day  which  render  the  passage  of  such 
legislation  necessary  or  desirable,  and  that  the  reasons  urged  for  the 
passage  of  this  act  are  not  valid. 

It  then  becomes  necessary  to  consider  what  the  reasons  are  that  are 
urged  for  the  passage  of  this  act.  The  reason  that  has  heretofore  been 
urged  for  the  passage  of  similar  acts  is  that  the  product  was  unwhole- 
some. That  argument  is  presented  still.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any 
testimony,  which  is  worthy  of  being  considered  as  testimony,  to  that 
effect.  As  I  have  said,  I  believe  it  is  the  one  substance  which  is,  as  no 
other  substance  possibly  can  be  under  existing  laws,  certified  by  the 
Govei  nment  of  the  United  States  to  be  absolutely  pure.  We  have,  in 
addition  to  that,  the  testimony  of  chemists  of  the  very  highest  stand- 
ing and  repute  who  have  examined  the  substance  and  who  have  certified 
over  and  over  again  to  its  absolute  purity. 

But  notwithstanding  all  that,  the  strongest  opposition  to-day  to  oleo 
margarine,  the  strongest  popular  support  brought  to  this  act,  is  based 
upon  the  opprobrious  epithets  which  are  hurled  at  the  product  and 
which  have  been  used  by  the  advocates  of  this  bill  in  the  House.  While 
in  the  face  of  the  testimony  which  is  introduced  it  is  impossible  to  claim 
that  there  is  anything  deleterious  in  this  product,  it  is  nevertheless 
claimed  by  innuendo  and  indirection  that  there  are  in  the  product  those 
things  which  render  it  harmful  to  certain  persons  or  on  certain  occa- 
sions, and  there  is  something  which  perhaps  is  called  evidence  with 
reference  to  its  effect  in  almshouses  somewhere  in  England. 

It  seems  unnecessary  to  argue  this  point.  I  presume  the  members 
of  this  committee  know  the  conditions  under  which  oleomargarine  is 


OLEOMARGARINE.  19 

produced — that  there  has  to  be  a  regular  formula;  that  there  is  a 
chemist  maintained  at  the  expense  of  the  Government,  who  examines 
samples;  that  representatives  of  the  Internal-Revenue  Department 
stand  in  the  doorway  of  every  oleo  manufactory;  that  they  know 
exactly  what  comes  into  the  building  and  what  goes  out  of  the  build- 
ing. But  at  the  same  time  there  is  lingering  to-day  in  the  public  mind 
an  impression  that  there  is  something  unclean  or  unwholesome  in 
the  product  itself. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  question  is  not  raised  here,  I  think, 
Mr.  Gardner. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  raised  here.  It  was,  how- 
ever, strongly  urged  by  the  advocates  of  the  bill  in  the  House,  and  it 
is  for  that  reason  that  I  refer  to  it.  There  is  testimony  here  also  with 
reference  to  its  effect  upon  inmates  of  poorhouses  and  asylums  in 
England.  Whether  the  question  is  raised  before  the  committee,  or 
will  be  raised  before  the  committee,  I  have  no  way  of  knowing.  It 
was  raised  by  innuendo  certainly  before  the  House  committee. 

Then  the  second  reason  that  is  alleged  for  the  necessity  of  this  act  is 
that  oleomargarine  is  fraudulently  sold  as  butter.  To  a  certain  extent 
this  is  true.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  retailers,  unscrupulous 
retailers,  do  occasionally  sell  oleomargarine^  pretending  that  it  is  but- 
ter, just  as  they  sell  the  imitation  of  everything  else  which  they  carry 
in  stock,  pretending  that  it  is  the  article  that  it  purports  to  be. 
But  we  do  claim  here  that  there  is  less  fraud  in  the  sale  of  oleomarga- 
rine as  butter  than  there  is  in  the  sale  of  most  imitations,  and  that  that 
elimination  of  fraud  has  been  procured  by  the  rigid  Government  super- 
vision, and  can  be  extended  by  an  even  more  rigid  Government  super- 
vision, which  every  honest  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  is  anxious 
to  submit  to,  and,  so  far  as  it  lies  in  his  power,  to  secure. 

But  the  statements  which  are  made  with  reference  to  the  amount  of 
the  fraudulent  sales  of  oleomargarine  in  imitation  of  butter  are  abso- 
lutely groundless.  The  author  of  the  bill,  in  advocating  its  passage 
in  the  House,  said  that  not  one  pound  in  a  thousand  of  this  substance 
was  sold  as  oleomargarine,  but  that  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine 
pounds  out  of  every  thousand  were  sold  as  butter.  Another  advocate 
of  the  bill  said  that  90  per  cent  of  the  product  was  sold  as  butter. 
Another  advocate  of  the  bill  said  that  it  was  never  put  upon  the  market 
except  as  butter.  All  those  statements  were  made  in  the  advocacy  of  the 
bill  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  all  those  statements  doubt- 
less had  their  effect  upon  those  who  had  not  investigated  the  testimony. 
'  After  looking*  through  the  testimony  which  was  taken  before  the 
House  committee  very  thoroughly,  the  only  evidence  which  I  find  in 
support  of  those  assertions  is  that  out  of  twenty-five  hundred  dealers  in. 
Illinois  two  were  found  who  had  made  a  fraudulent  sale  of  this  product 
and  the  affidavits  of  a  certain  party,  or  perhaps  parties,  in  Philadelphia 
that  on  several  occasions  they  had  purchased  in  one  market  or  at  one 
place  oleomargarine  for  butter. 

I  believe  that  that  was  absolutely  the  only  evidence  which  was  sub- 
mitted in  substantiation  of  these  wild  charges.  What  was  the  evidence 
to  the  contrary?  The  late  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  has 
stated  that,  in  his  judgment  (and  there  is  no  man  who  had  such  oppor- 
tunities to  form  any  judgment,  he  being  charged  with  the  regulation 
of  this  business),  not  10  per  cent  of  this  product  was  sold  anywhere 
for  anything  else  except  what  it  actually  is,  oleomargarine. 


20  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Who  sells  this  oleomargarine  as  butter?  I  say,  and  I  say  without 
fear  of  contradiction,  that  no  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  sells  one 
pound  of  oleomargarine  for  anything  else  except  oleomargarine.  It 
is  utterly  impossible  for  him  to  do  it.  It  is  against  his  own  interests 
to  do  it.  Possibly  members  of  the  committee  know  the  kind  of  super- 
vision which  is  exercised  over  the  manufacture  of  this  substance;  that 
inspectors  of  the  Internal-Revenue  Department  take  account  of  every 
pound  of  material  which  goes  into  a  factory  and  see  that  every  pound 
of  oleomargarine  which  can  be  produced  from  that  material  goes  out 
of  the  factory.  There  is  absolutely  no  opportunity  for  any  manufac- 
turer, if  he  wished,  to  send  out  oleomargarine  as  butter. 

Then,  nobody  has  any  occasion  to  go  to  that  factory  for  anj^thing 
except  oleomargarine,  because  nothing  except  oleomargarine  can  be  sold 
at  that  factory  or  manufactured  at  that  factory  for  sale.  The  inspec- 
tion is  rigid.  The  penalties,  involving  the  forfeiture  of  the  manufac- 
turer's entire  plant,  are  so  extreme  as  to  render  absolutely  untenable 
the  supposition  that  any  manufacturer,  however  dishonest  he  might 
desire  to  be,  should  sell  this  product  for  anything  but  oleomargarine. 

I  do  not  know  how  it  may  be  with  the  great  packing  houses  with 
whom  my  clients  have  no  connection,  but  we  say  that  three-quarters 
of  our  entire  product  is  sold  by  the  manufacturer  directly  to  the 
consumer.  I  think  I  am  right. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  You  are  correct. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Approximating  three-quarters  of  the  entire  product 
is  sold  directly  by  the  manufacturer  to  the  consumer  in  the  original 
package,  usually  a  10-pound  package.  Now,  if  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  are  to  legislate  to  prevent  the  keeper  of  a  boarding  house 
from  giving  his  guests  some  imitatation  food  product  they  have  under- 
taken a  contract.  What  the  head  of  a  family  does,  whether  a  husband 
deceives  his  wife  and  his  children,  or  a  wife  deceives  her  husband  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  product  which  he  puts  upon  the  table,  we  do  not 
know.  Whether  the  keeper  of  a  boarding  house  deceives  his  guests 
as  to  what  they  are  eating,  we  do  not  know.  That  is  not  a  matter  of 
purchase  and  sale.  It  is  not  anything  which  by  this  bill  can  be  con- 
trolled. We  make  the  assertion  that  by  the  manufacturer  there  is  no 
violation  of  the  law  whatever;  that  every  pound  of  oleomargarine  pro- 
duced at  the  factory  is  sold  as  oleomargarine;  that  he  desires  that  it 
should  be  sold  as  oleomargarine;  that  he  is  making  a  reputation  for 
his  factory,  and  that  the  necessities  of  his  business  and  Ms  own  self- 
interest  require  that  he  should  do  it.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  with 
the  people  whom  I  represent,  the  great  proportion  of  the  product  is 
sold  by  them  directy  to  the  consumer. 

I  shall  have  to  take  up  this  question  regularly,  and  I  will  go  over  it 
as  quickly  as  possible.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  committee  deem  it 
essential  that  I  should  finish  what  I  have  to  say  absolutely  this  morn- 
ing. I  have,  I  think,  less  than  twenty  minutes  left. 

Senator  BATE.  It  is  about  10  minutes  to  12. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  shall  have  to  adjourn  at  12. 

Senator  WARREN.  I  suggest  that  we  fill  in  what  time  there  is  left, 
and  then  if  Mr.  Gardner  wishes  to  present  further  facts  to  the  com- 
mittee the  opportunity  will  be  given  to  him  to  do  so. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  do  not  think  I  shall  want  to  occupy  a  great  deal 
more  time. 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  21 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  agreeable  to  the  committee,  we  will  con- 
tinue the  hearing  to-morrow. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Certainly. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Let  us  meet  at  9  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  only  about  ten  minutes  left,  and  I 
will  ask  you  a  question.  Can  you  inform  the  committee  as  to  the 
average  price  of  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine — the  cost  of  pro- 
duction ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  should  say  about  12  cents — from  12  to  13  cents — 
but  my  client  can  answer  that  question  better  than  I. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  The  selling  price  of  our  goods  runs  from  12-J-  to 
13^  packed  in  tub,  and  the  average  profit  will  average  less  than  a  cent 
a  pound — barely  half  a  cent  a  pound  from  the  day  we  commenced  manu- 
facturing up  to  the  present  time.  To  substantiate  that  statement  our 
books  are  open  for  the  inspection  of  any  member  of  this  committee, 
or  the  members  of  a  subcommittee  of  this  committee. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  That  is  what  I  understood. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Is  there  any  residuum  ?  Have  you  anything  else 
except  oleo  left? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  The  only  residuum  you  can  speak  of  are  some  by- 
products which  come  from  the  rerendering  of  the  scrap  of  leaf  lard 
and  the  refining  of  a  certain  amount  of  grease  which  goes  out  on  the 
floor,  which  passes  off  into  soap  grease. 

Senator  BATE.  What  ingredients  are  put  into  oleomargarine  before 
you  sell  it? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  The  ingredients  that  go  to  make  up  oleomargarine 
are  oleo  oil,  neutral  lard,  lard  made  from  the  leaf,  and  nothing  but  the 
leaf. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  You  buy  the  leaf  ? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  We  buy  the  leaf  and  make  the  lard  ourselves.  It 
is  made  from  absolutely  pure  leaf. 

Senator  BATE.  What  are  the  proportions? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Cotton -seed  oil,  cream,  milk,  salt,  and  coloring. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  proportion  of  cream  and  milk? 

Senator  FOSTER.  Is  there  a  secret  in  your  formula? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Oh,  no;  there  is  no  secret  about  it.  There  is 
absolutely  no  secret  as  far  as  the  making  of  oleomargarine  is  concerned. 
The  three  ingredients  of  oleo — oil,  lard,  and  cotton-seed  oil — make 
from  75  to  80  per  cent  of  the  whole. 

Senator  BATE.  Of  equal  proportions  ? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  The  proportions  vary  according  to  the  seasons  of 
the  year  and  according  to  the  climate. 

Senator  BATE.  Of  those  three  articles? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Of  those  three  articles.  The  other  20  per  cent 
is  made  up  of  cream,  milk,  salt,  coloring,  and  the  natural  gain  which 
comes  from  the  churning  of  the  article,  the  same  as  in  butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  not  enough  milk  and  cream  in  it, 
however,  to  give  it  a  butter  color  ? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Under  this  bill  we  should  be  absolutely  unable  to 
use  any  butter,  because  all  butter  is  colored,  and  we  would  be  indicted 
for  using  butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  understood  Mr.  Gardner  to  say  that  but- 
ter was  universally  white  when  first  manufactured. 

Senator  BATE.  In  winter. 


22  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  stated  that  it  was  ordinarily  so.  I  do  not  think  I 
said  that  was  universally  the  case;  but  in  point  of  fact  butter  at  most 
seasons  of  the  year  is  practically  white.  It  is  slightly  colored. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  said  there  was  some  slight  color 
to  oleomargarine  when  first  manufactured. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  There  is  some  slight  color  to  it.  -It  would  be  very 
difficult  to  distinguish  the  ordinary  butter  of  commerce  at  this  time  of 
the  year  from  uncolored  oleomargarine.  One  bears  as  much  resem- 
blance to  the  other  as  can  possibly  be. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  two  articles  would  be  on  all  fours  until 
properly  treated  with  coloring  matter  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Absolutely  on  all  fours;  and,  as  I  said,  the  danger 
of  the  first  section  is  that  the  manufacturer  would  manufacture  a 
product  that  would  look  like  butter. 

Senator  WARREN.  That  is  to  say,  if  a  creamery  was  getting  milk 
from  a  dairy  where  the  cows  were  fed  through  the  winter  on  grain, 
the  butter  might  take  a  high  color,  but  if  butter  was  made  by  a 
farmer  who  had  three  or  four  cows  who  were  eating  hay  alone  it  would 
be  nearly  the  color  of  your  oleomargarine  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  That  is  what  my  clients  have  told  me. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  That  is  the  fact. 

Senator  BATE.  What  kind  of  food  is  it  that  gives  butter  a  yellow 
color  ? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Grain,  ensilage,  grass,  and  carrots.  The  color 
depends  on  the  food. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Why  do  you  color  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  was  going  to  speak  of  that,  later,  but  I  am  willing  to 
answer  the  question.  We  color  it  to  meet  the  public  taste — for  exactly 
the  same  reason  that  the  manufacturer  colors  butter.  We  can  not  sell 
it  unless  we  color  it. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Butter  is  colored  through  the  cow,  and  oleomarga- 
rine is  colored  after  it  is  made. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Butter  is  colored  after  it  is  made. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  when  a  gentleman  sits  down  at  a  table 
with  butter  before  him  he  does  not  know  whether  it  is  oleo  or  butter. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  If  he  is  living  at  a  boarding  house  he  trusts,  perhaps, 
to  the  honesty  of  the  person  with  whom  he  is  living. 

Senator  FOSTER.  What  is  the  difference  in  value  between  butter  and 
oleo? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Cheap  butter,  renovated  butter,  resurrection  butter, 
as  we  call  it,  made  up  of  old  rancid  butter  which  has  been  melted  and 
made  over  and  then  colored,  can  be  produced  cheaper  than  oleomarga- 
rine can  be  produced.  Then  butter  runs  up  to  any  cost  which  taste 
and  luxury  call  for. 

Senator  WARREN.  For  creamery  butter  they  would  charge  a  price 
twice  as  much? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Yes;  and  oleomargarine  never  under  any  circum- 
stances comes  in  competition  with  it.  It  has  not  the  taste  and  has  not 
the  flavor. 

Senator  BATE.  You  did  not  answer  my  question.  I  want  to  know 
what  kind  of  food  produces  white  and  what  kind  yellow  butter  ? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  As  I  am  something  of  a  farmer  perhaps  I  can 
answer  that  question  better. 

Senator  BATE.  What  kind  of  food  affects  the  color  of  butter? 


OLEOMARGARINE  23 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  One  of  the  members  of  your  committee  has 
already  explained  that.  I  am  not  a  practical  farmer,  and  I  do  not  pre- 
tend to  know  so  much  about  it  probably  as  some  of  the  other  gentle- 
men, but  in  a  general  way  when  a  herd  of  cows  is  kept  on  an  ordinary 
farm,  ordinary  country  stock,  not  Jerseys,  or  Alderne}^,  or  Guernseys, 
not  high  grade,  but  kept  in  an  ordinary  barn  during  the  winter  and 
fed  on  hay  and  fodder,  the  butter  will  come  out  very  nearly  white. 
Now,  if  you  go  from  that  to  a  herd  of  high-grade  Jerseys,  or  Guern- 
seys, or  Alderneys,  any  of  the  high-grade  cattle,  and  they  are  fed  on 
grass  or  on  grain,  or  carrots,  or  ensilage,  or  anything  of  that  kind, 
they  will  produce  a  butter  more  highly  colored,  but  it  will  not  be  even 
then  of  the  shade  of  that  which  is  ordinarily  served  on  the  tables. 
Every  section  of  the  country  has  a  different  color,  and  that  color  is 
obtained  in  butter  the  same  as  it  is  obtained  in  oleo,  and  it  could  not 
be  gotten  any  other  way. 

Senator  BATE.  Cows  that  are  fed  in  winter  upon  hay,  etc.,  produce 
white  butter? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  On  dry  food. 

Senator  BATE.  On  dry  food? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  BATE.  Suppose  those  same  cows  are  grazed  in  summer  on 
grass,  how  does  that  affect  the  color  of  the  butter? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  That  would  give  it  a  different  color — more  of  a 
yellow  shade. 

Senator  WARREN.  It  generally  makes  a  difference  whether  the  cow 
is  fresh  or  not.  The  butter  is  more  highly  colored  soon  after  calving. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Mr.  Mathewson,  do  you  use  oleomargarine  on  your 
table? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  I  use  both.     My  family  is  not  large. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  know  the  difference  when  both  are  on 
the  table? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  I  think  I  do.  I  use  the  best  creamery  butter 
which  I  can  buy,  and  we  never  have  claimed  that  oleomargarine  was 
in  competition  with  that  grade  of  butter;  that  is,  on  the  table.  For 
all  other  purposes  in  my  family  I  use  oleomargarine. 

Senator  WARREN.  For  cooking. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  For  cooking  and  for  the  dressing  of  meats,  fish, 
pastry,  and  every  other  purpose.  Many  a  time  have  I  sent  from  my 
table  butter  that  cost  35  and  38  cents  a  pound  and  asked  them  to  bring 
oleo  in  place  of  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  not  necessary  that  it  should  be  colored 
for  cooking  purposes  ? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  That  is  not  necessary  for  cooking  purposes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  it  is  the  aim  of  Congress  to  under- 
take in  some  manner  to  inform  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people 
who  are  boarding  at  boarding  houses  and  hotels  as  to  exactly  what 
they  are  eating,  whether  it  is  butter  or  oleomargarine.  They  have 
no  wa}^  of  ascertaining  that  fact. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  You  can  not  inform  them  by  this  bill. 

On  motion  of  Senator  BATE  (at  12  o'clock  meridian),  the  committee 
adjourned  to  meet  to-morrow  at  half  past  10  o'clock  a.  m. 


24  OLEOMARGARINE. 

THURSDAY,  December  20,  1900. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Proctor  (chairman),  Hansbrough,  Warren, 
Foster,  Bate,  Money,  Heitfeld,  and  Allen. 

Also,  Hon.  William  W.  Grout,  a  Representative  from  the  State  of 
Vermont;  Hon.  W.  D.  Hoard,  president  of  the  National  Dairy  Union; 
C.  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Union;  Hon.  William  M. 
Springer,  representing  the  National  Live  Stock  Association;  Frank  M. 
Mathewson,  president  of  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing  Company;  Rath- 
bone  Gardner,  representing  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing  Company; 
Frank  W.  Tillinghast,  representing  the  Vermont  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany; Charles  E.  Schell,  representing  the  Ohio  Butterine  Company; 
John  F.  Jelke,  representing  the  firm  of  Braun  &  Fitts,  of  Chicago, 
111.,  and  others. 

PERSONAL   EXPLANATION. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  the  hearing  progresses  further 
I  desire  to  make  a  brief  statement,  to  be  entered  on  the  record  as  a 
part  of  the  proceedings  of  the  committee. 

During  the  last  three  days  I  have  been  in  receipt  of  numerous  tele- 
grams from  different  gentlemen  in  my  State  to  the  effect  that  it  is 
reported  in  Nebraska  that  I  am  opposed  to  this  so-called  Grout  bill 
and  strongly  urging  me  to  support  it.  I  have  never,  either  publicly 
or  privately,  given  utterance  to  anything  from  which  any  man  could 
infer  that  I  was  either  for  or  against  the  bill;  but  yesterday  I  had 
occasion  to  ask  General  Grout  some  questions,  from  which  it  was 
inferred,  I  suppose,  by  the  lobbyists  present  in  favor  of  the  measure, 
that  I  was  opposed  to  it;  and  during  the  night  and  this  morning  I  have 
received  numerous  telegrams  to  that  effect. 

There  is  but  one  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  situation,  and  that 
is  that  telegrams  were  sent  out  yesterday  to  the  State  of  Nebraska, 
after  the  conclusion  of  the  hearing  before  the  committee,  to  the  effect 
that  I  was  opposed  to  this  bill  and  urging  persons  there  to  flood  me 
with  telegrams  to  support  it. 

I  want  to  enter  nry  protest  against  this  cheap- John  peanut  political 
method.  It  is  an  old  and  threadbare  scheme  to  undertake  indirectly 
to  bring  pressure  upon  a  Senator  to  support  a  measure  regardless  of 
its  merits  by  the  implied  threat  of  a  withdrawal  of  support  at  home 
if  he  fails  to  do  so.  I  have  no  words  to  express  my  utter  contempt 
for  this  method  and  for  those  who  would  engage  in  it. 

The  lobbyists  who  are  supporting  this  bill  are  doing  it  more  injury 
than  its  open  and  avowed  opponents.  This  method  can  have  no  effect 
upon  my  action.  If  after  the  hearings,  are  concluded  1  become  con- 
vinced that  the  bill  ought  to  be  supported  and  become  a  law,  I  will 
support  it,  regardless  of  public  sentiment  in  my  State  or  elsewhere; 
and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  I  become  satisfied  that  it  ought  not  become 
a  law,  I  will  oppose  it  and  vote  against  it,  regardless  of  any  pressure 
that  may  be  brought  to  bear  in  its  support. 

1  desire  to  add,  in  conclusion,  that  if  any  more  reports  are  sent  out 
to  the  effect  that  I  am  opposing  the  measure  or  supporting  it,  and  if  I 
am  the  recipient  of  any  more  letters  or  telegrams  which  I  may  have  rea- 
son to  believe  emanate  from  the  lobbyists  in  favor  of  or  against  this 
measure,  I  shall  ask  that  these  hearings  be  private  and  that  no  one  but 


OLEOMARGARINE.  25 

the  particular  individual  who  is  giving  testimony  shall  be  present  at 
any  time.  I  want  again  to  denounce,  in  the  severest  language  I  am 
capable  of  using,  the  sneaking  and  cowardly  method  that  has  been 
pursued  in  respect  to  this  measure. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Gardner,  you  may  proceed. 

STATEMENT  OF  RATHBONE  GARDNER— Continued. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the  time  of  the  adjournment  yester- 
day I  had  partly  completed  my  argument,  and  with  the  permission  of 
the  members  of  the  committee  I  will  resume  it.  1  was  engaged  at  the 
time  of  the  adjournment  in  the  endeavor  to  support  the  proposition 
that  there  were  no  existing  conditions  to-day  which  demanded  the 
passage  of  legislation  of  this  character  in  the  interest  of  any  legitimate 
industry.  I  was  considering  somewhat  in  detail  the  reasons  which 
have  been  advanced  by  the  advocates  of  this  measure  for  its  passage. 
I  had  referred  to  the  claim  heretofore  made,  and  now  I  think  practi- 
cally abandoned,  that  oleomargarine  is  an  unwholesome  substance 
which  it  is  proper,  in  the  interest  of  the  public  health,  to  legislate 
against.  In  this  connection  I  desire  to  refer  to  one  piece  of  evidence 
which  I  did  not  mention  yesterday. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  May  I  ask  you  a  question  right  there?  I  do  not 
know  anything  about  this  business,  I  will  state  in  advance,  and  I  want 
to  learn  about  it  what  I  can.  Presuming  what  you  say  to  be  true,  and 
I  have  no  reason  to  question  it,  that  oleomargarine  is,  as  now  made, 
wholesome,  I  want  to  ask  if  it  is  not  possible,  it  being  a  combination 
of  various  materials,  I  suppose,  to  introduce  ingredients  that  are  in 
themselves  unwholesome — whether,  in  other  words,  an  unscrupulous 
dealer  might  not  put  in  unwholesome  ingredients  and  so  conceal  them 
that  the  final  consumer  would  not  be  able  to  know  it? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  will  answer  that  question  as  well  as  I  can,  Mr. 
Chairman,  not  being  thoroughly  familiar  personally  with  the  methods 
of  manufacturing  oleomargarine. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  appear  as  counsel? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  appear  as  counsel.  In  answer  to  your  question  I 
would  say  that  while  I  presume  it  is  possible  in  the  manufacture  of 
any  compound  to  introduce  elements  which  are  deleterious  to  the  pub- 
lic health,  I  believe  that  there  is  no  product  in  which  it  is  so  difficult, 
so  well-nigh  impossible  to  do  it  as  here.  The  manufacture  of  this  prod- 
uct is  under  the  control  of  the  Government.  The  Department  of 
Internal  Revenue  have  provided  the  most  stringent  regulations.  They 
keep  in  every  factory,  I  think,  an  inspector  whose  duty  it  is  to  know 
what  comes  into  that  factory  and  what  goes  out  of  the  factory.  Noth- 
ing- can  go  out  of  that  factory  except  oleomargarine,  and  everything 
that  goes  into  that  factory  is  to  be  used  for  the  manufacture  of  oleo- 
margarine. If  any  substance  of  that  kind  is  taken  into  the  factory  it 
must  be  known.  Moreover,  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
maintains  an  expert  chemist  to  whom  the  articles  of  this  manufacture 
can  be  submitted  without  cost  for  analysis  and  for  constant  inspection 
as  to  their  component  parts.  So  I  believe  if  it  can  be  said  of  any  com- 
modity that  it  is  impossible  to  introduce  deleterious  substances  into  it 
that  can  be  said  of  this  commodity. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  answers  my  question. 


26  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  And  1  think  that  to-day  there  is  no  question  made 
by  any  person  whose  judgment  is  worth  anything,  there  is  no  question 
by  anj^one  else  than  those  who  hurl  epithets,  who  call  it  grease  prod- 
uct and  that  sort  of  thing,  that  the  product  is  in  any  degree  unwhole- 
some. 

In  this  connection  I  desire  to  ask  the  careful  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  the  report  with  reference  to  oleomargarine  which  is  con- 
tained in  the  findings  of  the  committee  of  the  Senate  which  was 
appointed  to  consider  the  question  of  the  adulteration  of  food  prod- 
ucts. Such  a  consideration  will  show  to  the  members  of  this  com- 
mittee that  that  committee  has  certified,  as  every  competent  authority 
has  certified,  that  oleomargarine  is  probably  the  one  purest  compound 
which  is  manufactured  for  human  consumption. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Let  me  ask  a  question.  Do  I  understand 
you  to  say  that  the  Government  keeps  an  inspector,  or  agent,  or 
expert,  in  each  of  the  oleomargarine  factories  in  the  country  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  think  so.  If  not  constantly  in  each  of  the  oleomar- 
garine factories,  certainly  in  each  district  where  there  is  an  oleomar- 
garine factory,  whose  duty  it  is  to  visit  the  factory. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Can  you  tell  us  how  many  oleomargarine 
factories  there  are  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  am  informed  that  the  manufacturers  make  every 
month  a  sworn  return  of  every  item  of  material  which  goes  into  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  and  that  there  are  in  each  district  inspec- 
tors of  the  internal  revenue  department  who  investigate  the  facts  from 
time  to  time  to  ascertain  whether  these  returns  are  correct. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Can  you  inform  the  committee  how  many 
oleomargarine  factories  there  are  in  the  United  States,  approximately  ? 

Senator  BATE.  And  where  located  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  shall  perhaps  refer  that  question  to  some  gentle- 
man engaged  in  the  business. 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  Internal  Revenue  Department  in  the  last  report 
state  that  there  were  twent}r-seven  oleomargarine  factories  in  the 
United  States  on  the  1st  of  last  July.  Since  then  there  have  been 
some  new  establishments  opened. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  So  there  are  several  of  them  in  an  internal- 
revenue  district? 

Mr.  JELKE.  In  several  of  the  internal-revenue  districts  there  are  a 
number. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Do  I  understand  that  the  inspector  in  each 
district  depends  upon  the  man  at  the  factory  for  the  report  to  his 
Department,  and  that  he  has  no  personal  supervision  ? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Our  factory  is  visited  almost  daily  by  some  internal- 
revenue  deputy,  and  I  have  personally  taken  the  new  deputies  who 
have  come  to  visit  us  over  the  factories  and  let  them  see  every  nook 
and  corner. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  factory?" 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  represent  Braun  &  Fitts,  of  Chicago. 

Senator  BATE.  Can  you  tell  us  where  the  factories  are  located,  or 
will  you  submit  it  in  writing,  so  that  we  may  know  in  what  States 
they  are  located? 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  can  do  so. 

Senator  BATE.  I  do  not  ask  you  to  stop  to  do  it  now. 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  Internal-Revenue  Commissioner's  report  gives 
each  one  in  detail.  I  will  furnish  that  if  it  is  desired. 


OLEOMARGARINE  27 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  There  is  butvone  Government  chemist,  how- 
ever, who  is  authorized  to  inspect  the  ingredients  ? 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  understand  there  is  one  head  chemist. 

Senator  FOSTER.  He  has  several  deputies  ? 

Mr.  JELKE.  He  has  several  deputies. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Are  you  compelled  to  submit  this  product  to  the 
chemist? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Whenever  he  calls  for  it  we  submit  to  him  anything. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  He  has  no  personal  supervision  over  the  con- 
stituent parts  that  go  into  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  he  desires  it  he  can  have.  It  is  his  privilege  to 
investigate  every  part  of  the  manufacture,  and  our  factory  is  as  open 
to  him  as  it  is  to  any  employee  of  the  establishment. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  will  resume,  Mr.  Gardner.  . 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  had  then  taken  up  the  claim  of  the  advocates  of  the 
bill  that  oleomargarine  is  to  a  great  extent  fraudulently  sold,  not  as 
oleomargarine,  but  as  butter.  I  had  endeavored  to  show  that  while 
undoubtedly  there  is  a  certain  element  of  fraud  in  the  sale  of  this  arti- 
cle, as  there  is  in  the  sale,  it  seems  to  me,  of  every  food  product,  the 
element  of  fraud  is  much  less  than  has  been  claimed,  and  that  it  con- 
sists entirely  in  the  transactions  between  the  retailer  and  the  consumer. 
I  had  considered  at  length,  and  I  hope  established  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  members  of  the  committee,  that  there  is  and  can  be  no  fraudu- 
lent sale  of  this  product  by  the  manufacturer;  that  the  manufacturer 
sells  nothing  else  at  his  establishment;  that  he  is  not  allowed  by  law 
to  .keep  for  sale  in  his  establishment  anything  e^e,  and  that  anyone 
who  comes  to  purchase  any  substance  there  comes  to  purchase  oleo 
margarine  and  nothing  else,  and  that  there  is  no  fraud  on  his  part. 

That  is  the  point  at  which  I  left  my  argument  yesterday,  namely, 
the  assertion  that  whatever  fraud  there  is  in  the  sale  of  this  article  for 
something  other  than  what  it  is  is  confined  entirely  to  the  transaction 
between  the  retailer  and  the  consumer. 

The  manufacturer,  gentlemen,  is  just  as  anxious  to  prevent  fraud  as 
anyone  possibly  can  be,  and  he  must  be  so  in  the  nature  of  things.  He 
is  a  manufacturer  of  olemargarine.  He  himself  is  obliged,  as  I  have 
shown  you,  and  as  Mr.  Grout  admitted  yesterday,  I  think,  to  sell  it  as 
oleomargarine,  and  nothing  else.  It  is  for  his  interest  that  oleomar- 
garine should  have  a  legal  and  a  respectable  standing  as  a  food  product, 
and  every  fraud  that  is  practiced  with  reference  to  it  through  +he 
retailer,  every  prosecution  that  is  instituted  upon  the  ground  of  a 
fraudulent  sale,  is  an  injury  to  the  article  which  the  manufacturer  has 
to  sell.  Anything  which  this  committee  can  possibly  devise,  which 
shall  make  it  more  difficult,  if  that  may  be  possible,  for  the  retailers 
to  practice  fraud  in  this  respect  upon  his  customer  will  be  welcomed 
by  the  manufacturer. 

I  make  another  assertion,  gentlemen.  I  make  the  assertion,  with- 
out fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that  all  the  fraud  which  exists  in 
the  sale  of  this  product  is  due  to  the  passage  in  the  different  States  of 
laws  forbidding  the  sale  of  the  product  for  what  it  is — for  oleomargar- 
ine. As  was  suggested  here  yesterday,  in  some  32  States  laws  have 
been  adopted  which  forbid  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine.  There- 
fore, in  those  States  oleomargarine  can  not  be  sold  as  oleomargarine; 
and  I  make  the  statement  here  and  now  that  in  those  States  which  per- 
mit the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine  it  is  practically  never 
sold  for  anything  else  but  oleomargarine. 


28  OLEOMARGARINE. 

As  1  have  said,  1  appear  here  simply  as  an  attorney,  simply  as  an 
advocate,  without  a  special  knowledge  of  this  business.  Upon  this 
point,  however,  I  can  appear  as  a  witness,  for  I  know  the  condition  of 
affairs  which  exists  in  my  own  city  of  Providence.  The  State  of  Rhode 
Island  has  a  law  which  provides  that  oleomargarine  when  it  is  sold 
shall  be  branded  as  such.  That  is  all  the  law  upon  the  subject  in  the 
State  of  Rhode  Island.  The  result  is  that  in  the  State  of  Rhode 
Island  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  is  a  legitimate  business.  It  is  sold 
as  oleomargarine,  and  it  is  sold  as  nothing  else.  Our  wholesale  and 
our  retail  dealers  advertise  in  the  papers  that  they  have  this,  that,  or 
the  other  brand  of  oleomargarine  for  sale,  and  as  you  walk  up  and 
down  our  streets  you  will  see  upon  the  placards  in  front  of  our  grocery 
stores  this  or  that  brand  of  oleomargarine  at  such  a  price.  The  busi- 
ness is  advertised  as  widely  as  it  can  be  advertised.  When  you  enter 
the  stores  you  will  see  the  same  signs.  You  will  see  the  Oakdale  oleo- 
margarine or  the  Vermont  oleomargarine  or  Swift's  oleomargarine  for 
sale  side  by  side  with  process  butter,  and  side  by  side  with  creamery 
butter,  and  it  is  sold  for  what  it  is. 

It  is-  undoubtedly  the  fact  that  at  the  inception  of  this  industry 
unscrupulous  dealers  saw  an  opportunity  for  large  profits,  and  that 
they  sold  this  substance  for  butter.  As  district  attorney  of  the  United 
States  for  the  district  of  Rhode  Island,  I  had  occasion,  twelve  years  ago 
or  so,  to  prosecute  many  such  persons,  and  prosecutions  were  insti- 
tuted and  most  vigorously  carried  on  by  the  Internal-Revenue  Depart- 
ment of  the  United  States. 

Under  the  stimulus  of  the  possibility  of  a  legitimate  business  with  a 
fair  profit  into  which  high-minded  business  men  can  enter,  that  condi- 
tion of  affairs  has  absolutely  disappeared.  I  state,  gentlemen,  that 
to-day  in  the  one  city  with  which  I  am  familiar,  as  a  result  of  the 
fair  treatment  of  this  business,  the  business  is  conducted  fairly  and 
honestty.  This  article  is  sold  simply  for  what  it  is,  as  honestly  as  any 
other  article  of  food  is  sold  for  what  it  is. 

1  assert  as  a  corollary  to  this  proposition  that  almost  every  item  of 
fraud  of  which  the  advocates  of  this  bill  complain  is  due  to  the  enact- 
ment in  very  many  States  of  unjust  and  unwholesome  laws  forbidding 
its  sale  for  what  it  is — laws  which  have  no  backing  in  public  opin- 
ion, and  which  interfere  with  what  otherwise  would  be  a  legitimate 
business. 

Let  me  refer  to  what  is  the  condition  of  things  in  Massachusetts,  a 
neighboring  State  which  does  forbid  absolutely  the  sale  of  colored 
oleomargarine  even  as  oleomargarine.  The  condition  there  follows 
perfectly  naturally,  it  seems  to  me,  from  what  we  must  all  understand 
to  be  the  circumstances.  We  all  know  that  there  is  no  more  universal 
demand  than  the  demand  for  butter  or  something  to  take  the  place  of 
butter.  Butter  is  not  a  luxury.  Butter  is  a  necessity  of  life  to-day, 
and  there  is  a  demand  on  the  part  of  all  classes  in  the  community  for 
a  pure  butter  at  a  reasonable  .price,  or  a  pure  butter  substitute  at  a 
reasonable  price.  Creamery  butter  is  undoubtedly  the  best  which  can 
be  used  or  which  can  be  purchased,  but,  as  we  all  know,  the  great 
mass  of  the  community  can  not  pay  the  price  which  is  charged  for 
creamery  butter.  They  go  to  the  person  from  whom  they  buy  their 
butter  in  Massachusetts,  where  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  is 
forbidden,  and  they  tell  him  that  they  want  a  pure  butter,  a  good  but- 
ter, at  a  reasonable  price. 


OLEOMARGAEINE.  29 

This  dealer  has  upon  his  shelves  the  process  butter,  or  the  renovated 
butter,  to  which  I  shall  refer  in  a  few  moments.  That  he  is  allowed 
to  sell  by  the  laws  of  Massachusetts  without  let  or  hindrance.  He 
offers  it  to  his  customer,  and  perhaps  his  customer  buys  it.  He  goes 
home  and  tastes  it  and  finds  tljat  when  he  uses  it  it  takes  the  skin  off 
the  roof  of  his  mouth.  He  comes  back  the  next  time  he  requires  but- 
ter, and  he  says  to  the  dealer,  "We  can  not  use  that  stuff  you  sold 
me."  There  is  a  demand  which  this  dealer  is  tempted  in  some  way  to 
supply.  He  has  oleomargarine.  He  knows  that  if  he  sells  oleomar- 
garine to  this  man  at  the  same  price  or  a  little  higher  price  than  he 
paid  for  his  process  butter  this  man  will  be  a  satisfied  customer.  He 
does  sell  it  to  him.  He  sells  it  to  him  as  butter;  and  why  does  he  sell 
it  to  him  as  butter?  Not  because  the  man  is  not  perfectly  willing  to 
take  it  as  oleomargarine,  but  because  if  he  sells  it  as  oleomargarine  he 
violates  the  law  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts.  He  does  not  dare  to 
trust  the  customer,  who  may  appear  as  a  witness  against  him,  and  for 
that  simple  reason,  instead  of  selling  this  substance  for  what  it  is,  oleo- 
margarine, he  sells  it  for  butter,  which  it  is  not,  and  to  that  extent  he 
perpetrates  a  fraud  upon  his  customer.  It  is  the  most  innocent  of  all 
frauds  so  far  as  the  customer  is  concerned,  for  the  customer  gets  what 
he  wants,  a  pure  article  of  good  flavor,  which  satisfies  his  needs.  But 
he  does  buy  it  upon  the  statement,  perhaps  under  the  impression,  that 
it  is  something  else  than  what  he  asks  for,  and  that  is  a  fraud. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  do  you  call  process  butter? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Process  butter,  as  I  understand  it,  is  a  butter  which 
is  produced  in  this  way:  Butter  which  has  become  unmarketable — ran- 
cid butter,  butter  which  is  old  and  left  over,  which  for  any  reason  can 
not  be  used  in  the  trade — is  purchased,  and  it  is  melted  over.  It  is 
treated;  it  is  rechurned;  it  is  colored,  and  it  is  put  upon  the  market 
as  butter. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  ingredients  enter  into  process  butter? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  do  not  think  that  any  ingredients  enter  into  it.  It 
is  the  original  butter  spoiled  and  made  over  again. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Flavored  over? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Flavored  over  and  washed  with  acids,  as  my  clients 
inform  me. 

Senator  ALLEN.  How  do  you  remove  the  tainted  taste? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  will  ask  some  of  my  friends  here  to  answer  the 
question. 

Senator  FOSTER.  It  is  sterilized? 

Mr.  JELKE.  It  is  removed  by  aeration  and  washing  in  acid. 

Senator  ALLEN.   What  acid  ? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Sulphuric  acid. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Something  injurious  to  the  digestion  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  should  like  to  ask  a  question.  Do  you  know  that 
renovated  butter  is  washed  with  sulphuric  acid? 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  have  known  it. 

Mr.  HOARD.  How  do  you  know  it? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Because  I  have  been  in  the  butter  business  years  ago. 

Mr.  HOARD.   When  was  the  renovated  butter  process  instituted? 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  recent  improvements  in  process  butter  have  been 
adopted  within  the  last  five  or  six  years. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Ho  you  know  of  any  establishment  making  renovated 
butter  that  uses  sulphuric  acid? 


30  OLEOMARGARINE, 

\ 

Mr.  JELKE.  In  water;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Where? 

Mr.  JELKE.  They  have  used  it  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  HOARD.  In  what  establishment* 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  proper  for  me  to  say. 

Mr.  HOARD.  All  right. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  did  not  understand  your  question,  Governor 
Hoard. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  was  speaking  of  the  manufacture  of  process  butter, 
so  called.  The  gentleman  says  that  it  is  treated  with  sulphuric  acid. 
There  is  no  occasion  whatever  to  treat  it  with  sulphuric  acid  or  any 
acid. 

Senator  ALLEN.  How  can  you  remove  the  taint? 

Mr.  HOARD.  The  taint  is  in  the  casein  content  of  butter,  not  in  the 
butter  fat.  The  whole  process  of  albuminous  fermentation  is  in  the 
casein  content,  and  the  acid  does  not  take  out  the  casein.  The  simple 
method  of  making  process  butter  is  that  it  is  melted,  boiled,  clarified, 
skimmed,  and  the  elements  taken  out  of  it.  It  is  then  reincorporated 
into  milk  and  separated  by  centrifugal  separation,  the  same  as  butter 
fat  is  separated  from  ordinary  milk.  It  is  then  taken  and  put  into 
creamery  vats  and  subjected  to  the  same  process  of  ripening  that  the 
process  of  creamery  butter  is  subjected  to.  I  know  of  no  introduction 
of  acids  in  its  treatment,  and  I  was  asking  the  gentleman  what  he  knew, 
that  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  did  not  quite  catch  the  question  that  the  gentle- 
man declined  to  answer. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  asked  him  what  establishments  he  knew  were  treat- 
ing it  with  sulphuric  acid.  So  far  as  that  is  concerned,  the  testimony 
before  this  body  in  1886  was  abundant  as  to  the  use  of  sulphuric  acid 
in  oleomargarine. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  do  not  think  the  question  is  yet  answered  as  to 
how  you  eliminate  the  rancid  taste  or  the  decayed  taste  of  the  butter 
fat  from  process  butter. 

Mr.  HOARD.  By  boiling  and  clarifying,  and  in  that  manner  taking 
the  casein  content  out  of  it. 

Senator  ALLEN.  But  the  fat  itself  is  decayed,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  No,  sir;  not  at  all. 

Senator  ALLEN.  It  is  in  process  of  decay  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  can  not  decay  butter  fat  chemically.  The  only 
process  by  which  it  can  be  deca}^ed  is  through  what  is  known  as  albu- 
minous fermentation,  and  albuminous  fermentation  is  imparted  to  it 
by  the  casein  content,  which  is  almost  pure  albumen  or  protein.  Any 
person  who  is  a  student  of  these  things  will  readily  know  that  this 
process  butter  is  not  a  fraud  or  counterfeit  in  any  sense.  It  is  an 
imposition  if  sold  for  other  than  it  is.  Therein  constitutes  the  wrong- 
doing. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  say  that  the  butter  fat  itself  is  not  affected  or 
tainted  by  the  process? 

Mr.  HOARD.  No,  sir.  The  whole  process  of  rancidity  and  distaste 
which  you  have  in  rancid  butter  is  not  the  butter  fat  itself  but  is  in 
the  casein  content  which  may  be  left  in  the  butter. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Is  that  the  case  with  any  other  decaying  animal 
substance  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  do  not  know. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  31 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  May  I  have  the  privilege  of  asking  the  gentleman 
a  question  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  He  says  the  only  fraud  in  the  question  of  process 
butter  on  the  market  is  that  it  is  not  marked  or  branded. 

Mr.  HOARD.  No;  I  did  not  say  so. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  That  it  is  sold  for  what  it  is  not. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  say  in  case  it  is  sold  for  what  it  is  not  is  a  fraud. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Is  it  ever  sold  for  anything  else?  Can  you  tell 
the  committee  of  a  case  where  it  is  sold  for  renovated  or  process  butter  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  sale  of  process  but- 
ter at  all,  because  I  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  I  am  simply  rea- 
soning abstractly  on  the  proposition  as  to  wherein  the  process  lies  to 
the  extent  that  the  butter  fat  in  process  butter  is  original  butter  fat 
and  not  another  kind  of  animal  fat. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  I  understand  you  to  state  to  the  committee  that 
the  butter  fat  from  which  process  butter  is  made  is  not  tainted  and  is 
perfectly  sweet. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  did  not  say  that  the  butter  was  sweet. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  The  butter  fat? 

Mr.  HOARD.  The  butter  fat,  when  boiled  and  clarified. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  How  is  it  clarified  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  By  boiling.     It  is  steamed. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  process? 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  am,  somewhat. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  And  you  know  that  this  boiling  and  steaming 
absolutely  clarifies  that  fat? 

Mr.  HOARD.  Certainly;  I  know  that. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  I  shall  have  to  differ  with  you,  because  I  have 
seen  the  process  time  and  time  again,  and  I  know  that  that  is  not  the 
case. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Very  well;  I  ask  for  information.  What  do  you  know, 
please  ? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  I  know  that  the  fat  extracted  from  old  butter — 
butter  that  has  become  putrid,  or  strong,  or  rancid — is  thoroughly 
scented  with  that  same  odor.  No  amount  of  boiling — you  can  boil  it 
from  now  until  doomsday — will  ever  remove  that  rancid  smell. 

Mr.  HOARD.  What  is  done  to  remove  it? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  It  has  to  be  treated  in  other  ways. 

Mr.  HOARD.  In  what  way  ? 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  There  are  several  ways.  I  am  not  a  manufacturer 
of  process  butter  myself,  so  I  do  not  know,  and  in  such  factories  as  I 
have  been  in  they  have  tried,  I  think,  not  to  let  me  see  the  whole 
process. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  If  you  want  information,  I  am  thoroughly  familiar 
with  the  matter.  I  have  been  through  the  largest  factories  in  the 
United  States,  and  I  know  the  manufacture  of  process  butter  very 
thoroughly.  If  the  committee  want  the  information,  I  can  give  it  at 
any  time. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  would  like  to  have  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  presume  that  Mr.  Gardner  may  be  in  some  haste 
to  conclude.  I  suggest  that  we  allow  him  to  proceed. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  We  will  be  glad  to  hear  Mr.  Knight  later  on. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  will  endeavor  to  close  my  argument  as  quickly  as 


32  OLEOMARGARINE. 

I  possibly  can,  and  in  anything  I  may  state  which  may  require  investi- 
gation or  answer  the  answer,  perhaps,  can  be  reserved. 

The  point  which  I  was  trying  to  make  was  that  absolutely  the  only 
occasion  for  the  fraud  which  the  advocates  of  this  bill  complain  of  is 
the  passage  in  so  many  States  of  laws  which  make  it  impossible  for  a 
dealer  to  be  honest,  however  much  he  may  desire  to  be  so,  if  he  is  to 
sell  this  product  at  all,  which  actually  supplies  a  demand.  I  say  that 
if  the  advocates  of  the  bill  are  consistent  and  desire  that  oleomargarine 
should  stand  in  the  market  solely  upon  its  own  merits  and  should  not 
come  into  competition  with  butter,  they  can  accomplish  this  purpose 
by  procuring  the  repeal  of  those  laws.  They  would  do  so  if  they  knew 
where  their  own  interests  lay.  It  is  simply  by  making  it  illegal  to 
carry  on  this  business  as  it  ought  to  be  carried  on  that  there  is  a  temp- 
tation offered  to  carry  on  the  business  as  it  ought  not  to  be  carried  on. 

But  what  does  this  bill  do?  The  bill  proposes  that  upon  the  States 
which  under  the  influence  of  wiser  counsels  have  not  enacted  such  laws — 
laws  which  have  occasioned  fraud — there  shall  be  imposed  the  same  con- 
ditions which  exist  in  the  States  where  those  laws  have  been  enacted, 
and  in  those  States  where  it  is  desired  to  do  an  honest  business  to  make 
it  possible  only  to  do  a  fraudulent  business. 

Let  me  point  out,  further,  that  the  bill  does  not  seek  to  stop  such 
fraud.  The  bill  only  seeks  to  make  the  carrying  on  of  that  business 
more  expensive.  The  bill  allows  oleomargarine  to  be  manufactured 
and  to  be  artificially  colored  so  as  to  resemble  butter.  It  simply  pro- 
vides that  when  it  is  so  colored  as  to  resemble  butter  it  shall  pay  a  tax 
of  10  cents  per  pound  instead  of  paying  a  tax  of  2  cents  per  pound. 

Now,  let  us  suppose  it  to  be  true — I  assert  that  it  is  not  true,  but  it 
is  the  basis  of  the  whole  argument  of  the  advocates  of  the  bill — let  us 
suppose  it  to  be  true  that  this  substance  when  artificially  colored  does 
come  into  competition  with  the  best,  or  with  good  creamery,  butter. 
That  is  what  they  assert.  They  say  that  it  can  be  sold  for  28  or  30,  and 
in  some  instances  for  35  cents  a  pound.  Let  us  suppose  that  to  be  true. 
Then  oleomargarine  which  sells  to-day  at  15  cents  a  pound  at  retail, 
after  the  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound  has  been  paid,  would  sell,  after  the 
passage  of  this  bill,  to  secure  the  same  profit  to  its  manufacturer  and 
its  retailer,  at  8  cents  a  pound  more,  or  at  23  cents  a  pound.  If  it 
does  come  into  competition  with  creamery  butter  at  25  and  30  and  35 
cents  a  pound  it  will  come  into  competition  still,  and  if  the  dealer 
wants  to  make  his  profit  he  will  simply  have  to  press  the  sale  of  it 
harder.  There  is  to  be  a  profit  of  7  or  12  cents  a  pound  in  the  perpe- 
tration of  this  fraud,  even  after  the  passage  of  the  bill,  if  the  statement 
of  the  advocates  of  the  bill  is  even  approximately  correct  that  it  can 
be  sold  as  pure  creamery  butter  of  the  highest  type.  Therefore  it 
appears  that  the  advocates  of  the  bill  do  not  offer  any  remedy  for  the 
fraud  of  which  they  complain,  but  that  upon  their  own  hypothesis 
they  are  only  making  the  fraud  more  expensive  to  the  man  who  carries 
it  on;  and  the  bill  is  utterly  inadequate  for  the  purpose  for  which  it 
purports  to  be  drawn. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  How  would  it  do  to  make  the  tax  20  cents  a 
pound  3 

Mr.  GARDNER.  That  would  be  more  effective.  A  tax  of  a  dollar  a 
pound  would  be  more  effective  still.  Bat  you  come  right  back  to  the 
proposition  which  I  laid  down  at  the  start,  that  this  is  legislation  which 
seeks  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  oleomargarine,  and  if  you  want  to  prohibit 


OLEOMARGARINE.  33 

it,  you  should  adopt  the  suggestion  which  has  been  made  and  put  the 
tax  so  high  that  it  can  not  be  sold  at  all  to  an}^body. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  If  there  were  no  State  or  national  law  on  the 
subject,  would  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  seek  to  color  their 
product  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  If  there  were  no  State  law? 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Yes.  You  complain  of  the  existence  of  State 
laws. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  do  complain  of  the  existence  of  State  laws,  not  of 
the  existence  of  national  laws. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  say  that  is  the  way  to  get  rid  of  the 
fraud? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Yes;  to  repeal  the  State  laws  which  say  that  colored 
oleomargarine  shall  not  be  sold  as  oleomargarine. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  And  to  have  no  laws  whatever? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  beg  your  pardon;  I  do  not  wish  to  have  no  laws 
whatever.  I  say,  have  the  most  stringent  possible  laws  to  provide 
that  it  shall  be  sold  simply  as  oleomargarine  and  as  nothing  else. 
Have  the  most  stringent  laws  possible,  but  no  laws  forbidding  the 
sale  of  colored  oleomargarine.  The  United  States  law  to-day  is  strin- 
gent. Every  manufacturer  is  glad  that  it  is  stringent.  Every  manu- 
facturer would  like  to  have  it  made  more  stringent  in  the  direction  of 
securing  the  sale  of  this  article  simply  for  what  it  is. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  If  denied  the  privilege  of  coloring  the 
product,  would  the  volume  of  the  product  diminish? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  It  would  diminish,  absolutely.  There  would  not  be 
any  sold  at  all,  in  my  judgment. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Would  that  be  the  case  with  butter,  if  there 
should  be  a  law  enacted  that  butter  must  not  be  colored? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  If  people  could  not  get  any  yellow  substance  to  eat 
on  their  bread  they  would  take  white,  undoubtedly;  but  as  long  as  there 
is  a  yellow  substance  on  the  market,  as  I  will  argue  to  the  committee 
in  a  few  minutes,  people  will  not  take  white. 

Now,  the  next  reason  advanced  why  this  legislation  ought  to  be 
enacted  is  that  yellow  is  what  is  called  the  butter  trade-mark.  That 
phrase  was  used  by  the  advocates  of  this  bill  in  the  House.  It  was 
said  that  butter  has  some  sort  of  a  trade-mark  or  copyright  upon  the 
color  yellow.  That  matter  has  been  hashed  out  at  great  length,  and  it 
is  not  necessary  for  me  to  go  into  it  in  detail  very  much;  but  I  do  want 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  these  considerations. 

It  has  already,  1  think,  sufficiently  appeared  by  the  admissions  of 
the  author  of  the  bill  made  here  yesterday  that  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  a  uniform  butter  color.  The  color  of  natural  butter,  the  color  of 
butter  before  coloring  matter  is  artificially  applied  to  it,  varies  with 
every  change  of  circumstance.  It  varies  at  different  seasons  of  the 
year.  It  varies  in  different  places.  It  varies  at  different  times.  It 
varies  in  accordance  with  the  way  in  which  the  animal  from  which  the 
base  of  the  product  comes  is  fed  and  cared  for.  There  is  no  such  thing; 
no  tint  can  be  pointed  at  or  referred  to  as  the  tint  of  butter. 

Ordinary  butter — butter  the  year  round,  butter  under  the  usual  cir- 
cumstances of  its  manufacture — is  nearly  white.  It  is  slightly  off  the 
color  of  white,  with  a  slight  yellow  tinge.  Even  before  the  invention 
of  the  great  creameries,  and  before  the  use  of  the  substance  which  has 
now  been  adopted  for  coloring  it,  butter  has  always  been  artificially 

S.  Rep.  2043 3 


34  OLEOMAEGAEINE. 

colored.  It  has  been  colored  for  the  reason  which  has  been  referred 
to,  happily,  I  think,  in  this  argument  by  the  advocates  of  the  bill,  in  the 
phrase  that  "the  eye  might  aid  the  palate."  It  is  colored  to  meet  the 
demand — the  taste  of  those  who  use  it.  It  is  colored  in  different  tints 
for  the  different  localities  in  which  it  is  to  be  sold.  It  has  always  been 
colored.  The  housewife  has  colored  it  in  her  churn  with  carrots,  and 
the  manufacturer  has  colored  it  as  he  deemed  proper  to  meet  the 
demands  of  those  to  whom  he  was  to  offer  it. 

1  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that  there  was  no 
one  substance  used  for  the  coloring  of  butter — there  was  no  standard 
coloring  matter — until  after  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  had 
been  commenced.  The  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  colored  their 
substance  also.  The  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  were  inventors. 
The  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine,  or  those  who  advised  them,  were 
scientists  looking  for  the  best  substances  which  could  be  used  for  each 
and  every  purpose  which  they  desired  to  accomplish;  and  they  discov- 
ered, or  found,  or  invented — I  do  not  know  which — a  substance  which 
is  called  annotto,  and  they  used  it  for  the  coloring  of  their  product  as 
the  article  best  adapted  to  that  purpose. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Do  the  creameries  use  the  same  coloring  matter? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  That  is  what  I  am  informed;  absolutely  the  same 
substance. 

Mr.  HOARD.  May  I  ask  the  gentleman  a  question  ?  Is  he  certain  that 
he  is  historically  correct  when  he  states  that  the  oleomargarine  men 
invented  annotto  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  do  not  say  that  they  invented  it.  I  do  not  know 
whether  they  invented  it  or  not.  They  discovered  and  adopted  it  as 
the  article  best  fitted  for  the  purpose,  it  not  having  been  used  before 
for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  beg  your  pardon.  I  was  a  cheese  manufacturer  forty- 
five  years  ago  in  New  York,  and  I  used  annotto.  Has  oleomargarine 
been  in  use  that  long? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  am  arguing  from  the  evidence  before  this  commit- 
tee. I  understand  the  evidence  taken  by  the  House  committee  is  here, 
and  I  am  arguing  upon  that  evidence.  The  truthfulness  or  the  untruth- 
fulness  of  the  persons  who  gave  the  evidence  I  can  not  vouch  for,  but 
as  an  attorney  I  take  the  evidence  as  here  and  argue  from  it.  There 
certainly  is  evidence,  and  the  strongest  evidence,  to  the  effect  that  after 
the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  had  shown  the  desirability  of  this 
substance  for  this  purpose  the  manufacturers  of  butter  adopted  it,  and 
that  the  manufacturer  of  butter  to-day,  who  previous  to  1886  used  all 
sorts  of  different  substances  in  attempting  to  color  his  butter  as  he 
desired  to  have  it  colored,  is  using  annotto  and  nothing  else.  Yet,  it 
appearing  by  the  evidence  that  the  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  first 
called  this  possibility  to  the  attention  of  the  manufacturer  of  butter, 
the  manufacturer  of  butter  to-day  claims  the  tints  which  are  produced 
by  this  coloring  matter  as  his  trade-mark.  That  is  a  fair  argument,  at 
least  from  the  evidence,  and  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  evidence — 

Senator  ALLEN.  Do  you  claim  to  have  used  this  coloring  matter 
before  the  creameries  used  it  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  That  claim  is  made,  as  I  understand.  That  is  in 
evidence. 

Senator  WARREN.  I  think  it  will  develop  that  the  substance  called 
annotto  was  used  many  years  ago  in  a  crude  way  for  coloring  butter. 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  35 

I  think  it  will  also  develop  that  by  an  admixture  of  ingredients  a  new 
and  better  coloring  has  been  adopted  by  the  oleomargarine  manu- 
facturers and  that  that  coloring  has  been  purchased  and  used  in 
creameries. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  That  is  probably  the  case;  butannotto  is  too  broad  a 
term,  perhaps. 

Senator  WARREN.  As  Governor  Hoard  has  said,  annotto,  or  a  sub- 
stance under  that  name,  was  used  many  years  ago  in  coloring  both 
butter  and  cheese. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  My  statement  is  that  the  substance  which  is  used 
now  b}T  the  manufacturers  both  of  oleomargarine  and  of  butter  to  color 
their  products  was  first  used  by  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine 
and  afterwards  adopted  by  the  manufacturers  of  butter. 

Now,  how  is  it  with  reference  to  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine  ? 
The  natural  color  of  oleomargarine  is  nearly  white,  very  near  the  nat- 
ural color  of  ordinary  butter.  For  precisely  the  same  reason  that  the 
manufacturer  of  butter  colors  his  product,  in  order  that  the  eye  may 
aid  the  palate,  in  order  that  it  may  be  attractive  to  his  customers,  for 
the  very  same  reason  that  he  colors  it  sometimes  a  very  light  yellow, 
sometimes  a  very  deep  yellow,  because  in  order  to  carry  on  his  busi- 
ness successfully  he  finds  it  necessary  to  meet  the  demand — for  pre- 
cisely those  reasons  the  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  colors  his 
product,  and  he  colors  it  all  sorts  of  shades  to  meet  all  sorts  of  demands. 
For  a  certain  trade  he  gives  it  but  a  slight  tint;  for  other  trade  he 
gives  it  a  deeper  tint. 

For  some  of  his  trade,  his  export  trade,  he  colors  it  a  deep  rich  red 
or  brown,  because  the  people  of  the  country  where  that  oleo  is  sent 
demand  that  the  article  which  they  put  upon  their  food  shall  be  of  that 
color.  He  colors  it  a  color  which  would  make  it  absolutely  impossible 
to  sell  one  ounce  of  it  in  any  part  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  from  which  you  or  I  would  turn  away  with  loathing,  simply 
because  there  is  somewhere  a  demand  for  a  butter  substance  of  that 
color.  It  is  for  simply  that  reason  that  he  colors  it  for  sale  in  the 
United  States  the  same  color  that  the  manufacturer  of  butter  colors 
his  product;  and,  as  I  have  previously  said,  the  color  which  in  the  vast 
majority  of  instances  is  used  is  a  color  the  desirabilitj*  of  which  was 
first  found  out  and  was  first  applied  by  the  manufacturer  of  oleomar- 
garine. 

The  next  reason  given  for  the  passage  of  this  proposed  act  is  that 
the  sale  of  oleomargarine  will  destroy  the  dairy  industry  of  the  United 
States.  I  say  that  that  is  absurd.  I  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  oleo- 
margarine, no  matter  how  it  may  be  colored,  can  never  compete  with 
high-grade,  high-priced  creamery  butter.  We  need  something  besides 
color  to  enable  us  to  do  that.  The  author  of  this  bill  here  yesterday 
dropped  a  statement  which  it  seems  to  me  is  of  the  very  greatest  value. 
He  said  that  in  judging  of  the  grade,  or  quality,  or  value  of  butter 
color  pointed  for  5,  while  taste  pointed  for  50.  Now,  coloring  may 
make  oleomargarine  look  like  butter,  coloring  may  make  people  think 
that  oleomargarine  is  butter,  but  neither  coloring  nor  anything  else 
can  make  oleomargarine  taste  like  the  high-grade  creamery  butter.  A 
man  may  be  deceived  once  into  purchasing  it;  he  is  not  deceived  twice 
into  purchasing  it,  and  the  man  who  deceives  him  does  not  receive  his 
custom.  It  is  absurd  to  say  that  this  substance,  which  can  not  under 
any  conditions  have  the  flavor  which  is  the  item  of  value  in  high-grade 


36  OLEOM  AEG  AKIN  E. 

creamery  butter,  competes  with  high-grade  creamery  butter.  There- 
fore it  seems  to  me  that  that  is  out  of  the  question.  I  will  show  in  a 
moment  that,  as  it  seems  to  me,  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  not 
compete  with  low-grade  butter  for  what  it  is. 

Further  than  that,  it  appears  from  the  testimony  taken  before  this 
committee  that  the  total  sales  of  oleomargarine  during  the  period 
covered  by  the  last  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue 
amounted  to  4  per  cent  of  the  total  sales  of  butter  of  all  kinds.  If  we 
take  the  statement  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  who,  as 
I  argued  yesterday,  is  best  fitted  to  judge,  not  more  at  any  rate  than 
one-tenth,  10  per  cent  of  the  oleomargarine  which  was  sold,  was  sold 
as  butter.  Therefore  not  more  than  10  per  cent  of  the  total  sales  of 
oleomargarine  came  into  competition  with  the  sales  of  butter;  and  from 
that  it  is  mathematically  evident  that  the  total  sales  of  oleomargarine 
as  butter  amount  to  only  four-tenths  of  1  per  cent  of  the  total  sales  of 
butter  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  do  you  call  the  total  sale  of  butter,  please? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  It  is  given  in  the  report  as  2,000,000,000  pounds. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Upon  what  authority '( 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Upon,  I  think,  the  estimate  of  the  Commissioner. 

Senator  WARREN.  The  estimate  of  the  Agricultural  Department  is 
1,500,000,000  pounds. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  estimate  of  the  Agricultural  Department  is 
1,500,000,000  pounds  as  the  production,  not  the  amount  put  on  the 
market.  Only  about  50  or  60  per  cent  of  that  goes  on  the  market. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  By  some  possibility,  taking  the  gentleman's  own 
figures,  it  might  make  the  sales  of  oleomargarine  at  the  outside  1  per 
cent  of  the  sales  of  butter.  It  could  not  bring  it  above  that. 

Another  fact,  which  I  think  is  established  by  the  evidence  and  which 
I  think  I  can  truthfully  assert  without  successful  contradiction,  is  that 
in  spite  of  and  in  the  face  of  the  use  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  the 
price  of  butter  is  higher  to-day  than  it  has  been  in  twelve  years,  and 
that  in  spite  of  the  use  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  the  percentage  of 
increase  in  the  sale  of  butter  to-day  is  greater  than  the  percentage  of 
increase  in  the  sale  of  oleomargarine.  Therefore  the  assertion  that 
whatever  unsatisfactory  condition  may  exist  in  the  butter  industry  is 
or  can  be  due  in  any  large  extent  to  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  is  an 
assertion  which  has  no  foundation  in  fact. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  May  I  ask  upon  what  you  base  your  claim  that  the  sale 
of  butter  has  increased  over  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  ?  Where  do 
you  get  your  statistics  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  As  I  stated  to  the  committee  yesterday,  I  have  taken 
this  matter  up  since  last  Monday  and  I  have  not  read  through  this 
report.  I  can  not  tell  in  what  item  of  the  report  that  is  found,  but 
that  statement  is  made  to  me,  and  if  necessary  (I  hope  my  friend  will 
make  some  memorandum  of  these  questions)  it  can  be  substantiated. 

Those  are  all  the  reasons  which  I  have  heard  urged  for  the  passage 
of  this  bill.  Not  one  of  them  is  valid.  It  is  said  that  oleomargarine 
is  unwholesome.  There  is  no  substance  sold  to  the  consumer  in  the 
United  States  of  America  to-day  which  is  so  absolutely  certain  of  being 
wholesome  or  the  healthfulness  of  which  is  certified  to  by  such  high 
authority. 

Mr.  HOARD.  May  I  ask  the  gentleman  one  question  ?  I  understood 
you  to  say,  sir,  that  an  inspector  is  at  the  oleomargarine  factory  to  see 
that  no  unwholesome  ingredient  is  introduced  into  oleomargarine  ? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  37 

Mr.  GARDNER.  To  see  what  ingredients  go  into  oleomargarine.  The 
manufacturer  is  required  to  make  a  monthly  statement,  under  oath,  of 
every  pound  of  ingredient  he  uses  in  the  manufacture.  It  is  the  duty 
of  the  inspector  or  the  deputy  inspector,  as  I  understand  it,  to  verify 
that  report  and  under  oath  to  say  that  the  manufacturer's  statement 
is  correct  or  incorrect. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Do  you  believe  that  the  manufacturer  always  states 
the  truth  concerning  the  ingredients  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Yes,  sir;  the  manufacturers  of  which  I  know  any- 
thing. That  is  my  belief;  it  is  not  worth  much  one  way  or  the  other. 

Mr.  HOARD.  The  department  of  agriculture  of  New  York  has  found 
by  chemical  analysis  11  per  cent  of  paraffin  in  oleomargarine.  That  is 
a  substance  which  no  known  acids  have  any  effect  upon.  Do  you 
believe  that  the  manufacturer  made  a  return  to  the  Government  that 
his  product  contained  paraffin  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  What  I  believe  in  that  particular  is  of  very  little 
importance. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  suggest  that  Mr.  Gardner  be  allowed  to  conclude, 
and  then  we  will  hear  from  some  of  the  men  who  are  actually  engaged 
in  the  business. 

Mr.  HOARD.  All  right. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  As  I  said,  that,  it  seems  to  me,  is  not  a  valid  reason. 
The  other  reasons  which  I  referred  to  are  no  more  valid,  the  reason  of 
the  small  amount  of  fraud,  which  can  be  prevented  if  the  manufacturers 
of  butter  see  fit  to  prevent  it,  the  reason  which  is  claimed,  that  yellow 
is  the  trade-mark  of  butter,  the  reason  that  the  sale  of  oleomargarine 
will  destroy  the  butter  industry.  That  is  negative.  I  have  met,  so 
far  as  I  was  able,  all  the  claims  of  the  advocates  of  this  bill. 

Now,  affirmatively,  I  do  claim  these  as  reasons  why  the  bill  should 
not  be  passed.  I  assert,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  passage  of  the  bill 
would  absolutely  destroy  the  oleo  industry,  which  during  the  past  six- 
teen years  under  the  sanction  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
has  been  built  up  at  a  vast  expenditure  of  money. 

I  assert  that  the  advocates  of  this  bill  intend  that  that  shall  be  the 
result  of  this  legislation;  that  it  is  not  intended  by  this  legislation 
merely  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  colored  oleo  and  to  make  that  impossible, 
but  it  is  intended  by  this  legislation  to  make  the  sale  of  any  oleomar- 
garine impossible.  And  I  submit  that  if  the  members  of  this  com- 
mittee will  read  carefully  the  argument  of  my  friend  on  my  left  and 
the  argument  of  the  gentleman  on  my  right  and  the  argument  of  the 
author  of  this  bill,  they  will  see  that  determination  stamped  upon  every 
sentiment  which  those  gentlemen  have  uttered.  My  friend  upon  the 
left  was  obliged,  I  believe,  to  present  a  letter  or  an  affidavit,  which 
was  read  during  the  discussion  of  this  matter  in  the  House,  saying  that 
he  had  not  expressed  the  sentiments  which  were  attributed  to  him  by 
the  report. 

Mr.  HOARD.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Then  some  one. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  never  made  any  affidavit  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Then  I  think  a  letter  from  Governor  Hoard  was 
read. 

Mr.  HOARD.  No,  sir;  no  communication  of  the  kind  was  ever  made 
by  me. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Then  I  withdraw  that. 


38  OLEOMARGAEINE. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Somebody  forged  my  name  to  a  letter,  and  I  denounced  it. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  do  not  know,  but,  according  to  the  report  in  the 
Congressional  Record,  a  letter  was  read,  I  thought,  from  Governor 
Hoard.  Of  course  I  accept  his  statement.  The  letter  stated  that  he 
was  incorrectly  reported  in  what  he  said  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  submitted  my  argument  in  writing,  so  that  whatever 
I  said  was  correctly  printed. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Besides  the  allegations  made  by  the  advocates  of 
this  bill,  what  they  have  done  in  the  States  where  they  had  the  power 
to  carry  their  theories  into  effect  shows  that  they  intend  to  destroy  this 
industry.  In  the  State  of  Vermont  there  is  a  law  which  requires  that 
no  oleomargarine  shall  be  sold  unless  it  is  colored  pink. 

Mr.  HOARD.  No;  that  was  the  law  in  the  State  of  New  Hampshire. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  That  is  said  to  be  the  law  in  the  State  of  Vermont 
and  in  the  State  of  West  Virginia. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  New  Hampshire  law  has  been  repealed. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  The  New  Hampshire  law  has  been  repealed,  and  it 
is  the  law  of  the  State  of  Vermont  to-day. 

Senator  HANSBROTJGH.  It  is  in  the  report  here. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  It  is  in  the  report. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  guess  that  is  true.     Two  States  have  that  law. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Occasionally  1  do  make  a  statement  which  is  accepted 
to  be  true  by  my  friends  on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  is  news  to  me. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  There  is  a  good  deal  that  is  news  to  you,  no  doubt, 
but  it  is  true,  notwithstanding,  that  in  the  State  of  Vermont,  the  State 
which  is  represented  in  Congress  by  the  author  of  this  bill,  there  is  a 
law  which  requires  that  all  of  this  substance  which  is  sold  shall  be 
colored  pink.  Now,  this  substance  can  not  be  colored  pink  without 
introducing  an  element  into  it  which  makes  it  a  menace  to  human 
health,  which  makes  it  a  deleterious  substance.  The  State  of  Vermont 
has,  therefore,  legislated  not  to  regulate  this  industry,  but  to  destroy 
it.  It  is  absolutely  certain  that  no  man  would  spread  upon  his  bread 
any  pink  substance. 

Senator  WARREN.  Those  laws  have  been  repealed  in  some  of  the 
States. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  do  not  care  whether  the  law  is  in  force  or  not;  I  do 
not  care  whether  the  law  is  operative  or  inoperative;  it  shows  the  pur- 
pose which  is  entertained  by  the  people  who  are  here  advocating  this 
bill;  a  purpose  not  to  regulate  this  industry,  but  to  destroy  it;  a  pur- 
pose not  to  have  oleomargarine  sold  as  butter,  but  not  to  have  oleo- 
margarine sold  at  all.  That  is  the  purpose  which  is  evidenced  by  the 
words;  it  is  the  purpose  that  is  evidenced  by  the  action  which,  is  louder 
than  words,  and  whether  it  is  the  purpose  or  not  it  is  the  inevitable 
result. 

It  is  the  inevitable  result  for  this  reason:  Oleomargarine  can  not  be 
colored  and  pay  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  and  be  sold  in  competition 
with  cheap  butter.  I  have  previously  argued  to  you,  and  I  will  not 
repeat  myself,  the  reasons  why  it  seems  to  me  that  it  can  not  be  sold 
in  competition  with  high-grade  butter.  It  can  not  be  sold  in  competi- 
tion with  butter  which  costs  over  22  or  23  cents  a  pound.  It  can  not 
be  sold  in  competition  with  cheap  butter. 

Oleomargarine,  which  to-day  pays  a  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound,  retails 
at  from  13  to  15  cents,  with  a  profit,  I  assert,  of  much  less  than  1  cent 


OLEOMARGARINE.  39 

per  pound  to  the  manufacturer,  and  with  a  profit  to  the  retailer  at  the 
lowest  rate  at  which  he  is  willing  to  handle  it,  because  where  he  sells 
his  oleomargarine  it  sells  in  the  strictest  competition  with  other  oleo- 
margarine. Remade  butter,  renovated  butter,  process  butter,  resur- 
rection butter,  as  it  has  been  called,  the  method  of  manufacture  of 
which  I  understand  the  committee  is  to  inquire  into,  it  is  shown,  I 
I  think,  by  the  evidence,  can  be  produced  for  13  or  14  cents  a  pound. 
It  pays  no  tax,  and  oleomargarine,  which  can  only  be  retailed,  as  it 
evidently  can  be  retailed,  after  the  payment  of  a  10-cent  tax,  at  not 
less  than  21  or  22  cents  a  pound,  has  got  to  come  into  competition,  if  it 
is  sold  colored,  with  this  made-over,  acid-treated  butter,  which  can  be 
sold  at  a  profit  at  15  cents  per  pound.  Therefore,  colored  oleomarga- 
rine is  absolutely  driven  out  of  the  market. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  beg  your  pardon,  but  where  do  you  get  the  figures 
which  show  the  price  of  renovated  butter? 

Mr.  GAKDNER.  1  get  those  from  statements  which  will  be  made 
here,  if  they  have  not  already  been  made.  My  clients  say  that  reno- 
vated butter  is  sold  to-day  in  the  city  of  Providence  for  15,  16,  and 
18  cents  per  pound,  and  colored  oleomargarine  can  not  possibly  be 
sold  at  less  than  21  or  23  cents  a  pound  if  taxed  ten  cents  a  pound. 

But  gentlemen  will  say  to  me  that  oleomargarine  can  still  be  sold 
uncolored.  Gentlemen,  it  can  not.  We  come  back  to  the  old  ques- 
tion of  the  eye  aiding  the  palate.  The  attempt  to  sell  oleomargarine 
uncolored  runs  counter  to  a  law  which  is  more  universal  in  its  opera- 
tion and  stronger  in  its  action  than  any  law  of  Congress — a  law  of 
human  nature — the  law  of  conformity  to  custom.  The  people  of  the 
United  States  have  been  accustomed  to  spreading  upon  their  bread  a 
yellow  compound.  The  manufacturers  of  butter  realize  it.  The 
author  of  this  bill  said  here  yesterday  that  he  considered  it  was  silly 
and  foolish  and  unwise  for  people  to  demand  an  artificially  colored 
butter;  but  he  admitted  that  people  did  demand  an  artificially  colored 
butter,  and  that  a  butter  which  is  not  artificially  colored,  no  matter 
how  excellent  it  may  be  in  any  other  respect,  can  not  be  sold  in  market 
to-day  in  competition  with  a  butter  which  is  artificially  colored. 

It  is  exactly  the  same  with  oleomargarine.  No  matter  though  the 
purchaser  may  be  convinced  that  oleomargarine  is  absolutely  pure,  no 
matter  though  his  taste  may  inform  him  that  it  is  palatable,  if  an 
attempt  is  made  to  make  him  use  it  when  it  bears  a  color  absolutely 
distinct  and  different  from  that  which  belonged  to  the  article  which  he 
and  his  fathers  have  used  for  the  same  purpose  he  refuses  to  use  it. 
The  illustration  was  used  here  yesterday  with  reference  to  the  coat  of 
a  gentleman.  When  the  author  of  this  bill  was  asked  why  the  manu- 
facturers of  butter  colored  their  product,  he  said  they  did  it  to  meet 
the  demand;  that  they  did  it  to  comply  with  a  law  of  conformity  to 
custom,  and  he  illustrated  it  by  saying  that  a  member  of  this  committee 
was  wearing  to-day  a  black  coat.  He  did  it  because  black  suited  his 
taste. 

If  it  were  proposed  to-day  to  a  member  of  this  committee  that  he 
should  purchase  either  a  black  coat  of  poor  quality  and  high  price  or 
a  bright  pink  coat  of  the  very  best  quality  at  a  low  price,  the  poor 
black  coat  at  a  high  price  would  be  purchased  and  the  excellent  pink 
coat  at  a  low  price  thrown  aside.  It  is  silly;  yes,  it  is  silly;  but  it  is  a 
law  of  custom  which  exists  more  vividly  and  with  greater  effect  in  that 
which  we  eat  than  it  exists  anywhere  else.  We  may  violate  it  in  the 


40  OLEOMAKGAEINE. 

matter  of  dress;  we  can  not  violate  it,  our  eye  will  not  allow  us  to  vio- 
late it,  our  education  will  not  allow  us  to  violate  it,  in  regard  to  what 
we  eat.  It  is  absolutely  impossible  to  force  upon  the  market  at  any 
price  a  white  substance  to  be  used  as  butter,  and  therefore  if  it  is  pro- 
posed to  insist  that  this  substance  shall  be  sold  in  its  natural  condition 
and  without  any  coloring  matter  you  force  it  absolutely  out  of  sale 
entirely. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  does  not  color 
his  product  in  order  that  it  may  resemble  butter.  He  wants  to  sell  it 
as  oleomargarine.  He  can  not  sell  it  as  anything  else.  When  a  sale 
for  it  as  oleomargarine  is  established  his  business  increases  and  his 
business  becomes  reputable,  but  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  him  to 
carry  on  that  business  if  he  is  compelled  to  put  up  his  product  in  a  form 
in  which  the  public  will  not  take  it.  We  color  our  oleomargarine  for 
exactly  the  same  reason  that  the  manufacturer  of  butter  colors  his  but- 
ter. As  the  author  of  the  bill  said  yesterday,  the  manufacturer  of 
butter  must  color  his  butter  in  order  that  the  people  who  are  accus- 
tomed to  spread  that  yellow  substance  upon  their  bread  may  spread  it. 
When  we  send  oleomargarine  to  South  America  we  color  it,  as  I  have 
said,  a  deep  blood  red  or  dark  brown,  because  the  people  of  that  coun- 
try like  to  spread  that  kind  of  substance  upon  their  bread. 

Senator  HANSBKOUGH.  Is  that  the  color  of  their  butter  down  there  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  the  color  of  their  butter 
or  not;  it  is  what  they  demand.  It  is  the  color  of  taste.  It  is  a  sub- 
stitute for  something  else  that  they  use  as  butter. 

Senator  BATE.  The  color  and  not  the  taste  governs  the  sale  alto- 
gether, then? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  No,  sir;  I  think  not.  The  color  is  a  necessary  ele- 
ment, but  the  taste  is  even  more  important.  We  can  not  sell  yellow 
butter  which  is  rancid  because  it  is  yellow,  neither  can  we  sell  good 
butter  which  is  white  because  it  is  good.  Both  elements  must  concur 
if  we  are  to  make  a  sale  of  the  product. 

Now,  I  want  to  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  on  behalf  certainly  of  one 
manufacturer  whom  I  represent,  and  I  believe  on  behalf  of  every  other 
.  manufacturer,  that  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  welcome  any 
legislation  which  will  render  it  more  difficult  and  which  will  make  it 
absolutely  impossible  to  sell  this  substance  for  anything  except  what 
it  is.  We  welcome  the  suggestion  that  oleomargarine  shall  be  placed 
within  the  provisions  of  the  pure-food  bill  which  it  is  proposed  to 
adopt.  But  we  do  protest  against  the  destruction  of  our  industry. 

There  is,  I  think,  now  before  this  committee  a  bill  (it  was  here  at 
the  last  session)  entitled  "A  bill  to  define  renovated  butter,  also 
imposing  a  tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale,  importation, 
and  exportation  thereof."  That  bill  is  upon  the  files  of  this  committee. 
If  that  bill  is  left  to  slumber  upon  the  files  of  the  committee,  if  this 
substance  is  not  included  within  the  provisions  of  the  bill  which  is  now 
before  this  committee,  then  the  result  of  the  legislation  is  to  drive 
absolutely  away  and  out  of  commerce  an  article  which  is  acknowledged 
to  be  pure  and  wholesome  and  for  which  there  is  acknowledged  to  be 
a  demand,  and  to  force  upon  the  whole  community  as  a  substitute  for 
it  an  article  which  is  acknowledged,  I  think,  to  be  deleterious.  The 
manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  can  manufacture  process  butter  if 
they  are  driven  to  do  it;  but  process  butter  is  an  article  which  should 
not  under  any  regulations  be  permitted  to  be  used  as  food. 


OLEOMARGAKINE.  41 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  If  you  will  give  me  just  a  second,  let  me  ask  a  ques- 
tion. You  represent  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing  Company? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  do. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Are  they  satisfied  with  the  present  law  on  oleomar- 
garine ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Yes;  they  are  satisfied  with  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  they  comply  with  the  provisions  of  it? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  They  do. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  In  concluding,  gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  that  1 
ought  to  apologize  for  all  the  time  that  I  have  taken  up  this  morning. 
I  have  argued  this  morning  largely  upon  the  question  of  expediency. 
1  have  not  endeavored  to  meet,  as  perhaps  I  ought,  and  as  perhaps  I 
must  meet,  the  matter  which  has  been  referred  to  this  morning  by  a 
member  of  the  committee — a  matter  which  is  so  familiar  to  us  ail- 
that  this  legislation  is  urged  upon  this  committee  and  urged  upon  Con- 
gress because  it  is  stated  that  5,000,000  people  engaged  in  agriculture 
in  the  United  States  desire  it.  It  ought  not  to  be  a  balancing  of  the 
numbers  who  desire  it  or  who  do  not  desire  it.  It  ought  to  be  a  matter 
of  principle.  But  it  is  perhaps  necessary  to  meet  arguments  of  that 
character,  and  if  it  is  necessary  to  meet  them  1  ought  perhaps  to  take 
the  time  to  show  that  not  only  the  interests  of  a  few  manufacturers 
and  dealers  in  oleomargarine  are  here  concerned,  but  that  the  interests 
of  very  many  other  producers  in  this  country  are  indirectly  concerned. 

Oleomargarine  is  not  produced  by  magic.  Into  oleomargarine  have 
to  enter  various  substances  which  are  the  product  of  the  agricultural 
industries  and  interests  of  this  country.  The  raiser  of  hogs,  the 
raiser  of  cattle,  and  the  producer  of  cotton-seed  oil  are  all  interested 
in  the  growth  of  the  oleomargarine  business.  The  neutral  lard  which 
is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  and  which  comes  from 
the  hog,  is  a  product  which  sells  at  2i  cents  per  pound  higher  than  the 
only  other  alternative  product  which  could  be  made — lard  itself — and 
8  pounds  of  this  substance  are  produced  from  the  hog.  That  shows 
that  for  all  the  hogs  that  can  be  utilized  for  this  purpose  there  is  an 
added  value  of  20  cents  to  each  hog.  The  report  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Internal  Revenue  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 1899,  when  the  pro- 
duction of  oleomargarine  was  considerably  less  than  it  is  to-day,  shows 
that  31,297,251  pounds  of  neutral  lard  were  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
this  product. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  is  neutral  lard? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Leaf  lard. 

Senator  FOSTER.  How  many  pounds  do  you  state  were  used? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Thirty-one  million  two  hundred  and  ninety-seven 
thousand  two  hundred  and  fifty-one  pounds  in  that  year.  So  there  is  a 
vital  interest  on  the  part  of  the  farmers  who  are  engaged  in  the  raising 
of  hogs  that  this  industry  shall  not  be  wiped  out  of  existence. 

Senator  FOSTER.  What  part  of  beef  enters  into  it? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Oleo  oil  is  a  product  of  the  beef,  and  it  sells  at  a 
much  larger  price  than  any  other  product. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  would  become  of  these  elements  if  they  were 
not  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  They  would  have  to  be  sold  at  lower  prices  for  other 
purposes — tallow  in  the  case  of  beef. 


42  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  MONEY.  Will  you  allow  me  to  ask  3^011  a  question  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Certainly. 

Senator  MONEY.  As  I  came  in  I  heard  you  speaking  about  the 
rights  of  the  producers  of  butter,  oleomargarine,  renovated  butter, 
and  so  on.  Have  you  said  anything  to  the  committee  about  the  rights 
of  the  people  who  use  these  things — the  consumers? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  did  at  considerable  length  yesterday. 

Senator  MONEY.  P]xcuse  me,  1  will  get  it  in  your  printed  remarks. 

Senator  BATP:.  The  hearing  will  be  printed. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  There  were  also  during  that  same  year  about  four 
and  a  half  million  pounds  of  cotton-seed  oil  used,  forming  a  very  large 
outlet  for  that  industiy .  I  wish  to  call  once  more  the  attention  of  the 
committee — 

Senator  FOSTER.  How  much  oleomargarine  was  made  that  year  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Ninety -one  million  pounds. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Eighty-three  million  pounds,  I  guess  it  was. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  It  is  given  as  91,000,000  pounds.  I  do  not  know. 
If  you  dispute  the  report  of  the  Commissioner  I  can  not  help  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  have  not  got  the  right  report. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  1  have  the  report  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1SIM), 
and  I  have  read  the  figures  correctly. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  have  read  the  ingredients  and  not  the  product. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  In  this  connection  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  once  more  to  the  precise  wording  of  the  proposed  act  which 
is  before  the  committee.  It  authorizes  any  State  to  forbid  by  law  not 
merely  the  manufacture  of  any  oleomargarine  containing  coloring 
matter,  but  any  oleomargarine  containing  an  ingredient  which  makes 
it  resemble  butter,  or  look  like  butter,  in  the  language  of  the  act.  I 
am  informed  that  there  is  a  slight  tinge  to  cotton-seed  oil  which 
makes  oleomargarine  manufactured  from  cotton-seed  oil  a  little  off'  the 
white,  and  which  to  that  extent  makes  it  look  like  butter.  Therefore, 
if  this  act  is  left  as  it  is,  it  is  going  to  have  the  effect,  or  it  may  have 
the  effect,  if  States  see  fit  to  comply  with  the  terms  given  them  in  the 
act,  to  forbid  the  manufacture  of  any  oleomargarine  containing  cotton- 
seed oil.  I  do  not  know  whether  any  substitute  for  cotton-seed  oil 
which  is  absolutely  colorless  can  be  found  or  not.  The  bill  would 
make  it  perfectly  possible  for  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Vermont, 
or  the  legislature  of  any  State  of  this  Union,  to  say,  ''Manufacture 
your  oleomargarine  if  you  can,  but  do  not  put  any  cotton-seed  oil 
into  it." 

Mr.  GROUT.  Do  you  refer  to  the  proviso  to  the  first  section  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GROUT.  That,  allow  me  to  state,  is  the  language  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  deciding  the  Plumley  case,  and  it  was  incorporated  into  this 
bill.  That  first  section  went  through  the  House  four  years  ago.  It 
was  incorporated  in  the  bill  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Williams,  of  Missis- 
sippi, who  then  said  it  made  that  section  of  the  bill  satisfactory  to  him, 
and  that  language  was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
It  is  Mr.  Justice  Harlan's  language. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  ask  the  lawyers  on  the  committee  to  read  that 
section  and  tell  me  if  the  inference  which  I  have  drawn  from  it  is  not 
correct. 

Senator  WARREN.  I  understood  you  yesterday  to  say  that  butter 
and  milk  also  tend  to  color  oleomargarine. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  43 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Butter  and  milk  do  tinge  oleomargarine.  Cotton- 
seed oil  does  tinge  oleomargarine.  Therefore,  if  cotton-seed  oil  is 
allowed  to  enter  into  it  the  State  can  pass  a  law  which  forbids  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  at  all. 

Gentlemen,  1  ought  to  have  concluded  long  ago.  I  should  have  done 
so  if  it  had  not  been  for  these  interruptions,  which  I  have  been  very 
glad  to  answer  as  far  as  I  can.  In  concluding,  I  should  like  to  ask 
you  to  forget  all  these  questions  of  expediency.  I  should  like  to  ask 
you  to  forget  that  there  are  5,000,000  people  who  are  mistakenly  call- 
ing for  the  passage  of  this  legislation,  5,000,000  people  who,  during 
the  pendency  of  these  different  bills,  have  been  told  for  the  last  six 
years  that  everything  that  is  unsatisfactory  in  their  condition  is  due 
to  oleomargarine,  people  whose  condition  can  not  be  benefited  at  all 
by  the  passage  of  this  act,  but  people  who  believe  that  it  can. 

I  should  like  to  ask  you  to  forget  that  those  people  are  demanding 
it.  1  should  like  to  ask  you  to  forget  also  that  the  people  whose 
circumstances  are  to  be  injuriously  affected  by  the  passage  of  the  act 
are  protesting  against  it,  and  I  should  like  to  ask  you  to  go  back  and 
simply  and  absolutely  consider  nothing  else  but  the  principle  upon 
which  this  act  is  based,  which  we  considered  yesterday,  that  it  is  an 
act  which  pretends  to  be  a  revenue  act;  that  as  a  revenue  act  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  you  have  a  right  to  pass  it;  that 
as  a  revenue  act,  unless  the  real  purpose  of  it  appears  too  grossly  upon 
the  face  of  the  act  itself,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  would 
perhaps  uphold  it;  but  that  it  is  not  a  revenue  act;  that  every  gen- 
tleman who  appears  here  in  advocacy  of  it  says  that  the  revenue  which 
it  is  calculated  to  produce  is  not  entitled  to  any  consideration,  but  that 
it  is  an  act  simply  and  solely  to  affect  competition  between  two  legiti- 
mate articles  of  manufacture  and  trade.  That  is  avowed  by  everyone. 
As  such  an  act,  as  an  act  with  that  purpose,  it  is  an  act  which  those 
who  regard  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  sacred  would  not 
be  induced  to  pass  by  any  considerations  of  expediency  or  by  any 
demands  of  selfish  private  interests. 

The  Supreme  Court  may  say,-  as  they  have  said  before,  that  they 
can  not  impugn  the  motives,  purposes,  or  intentions  of  the  legislative 
branch  of  the  Government.  But  no  less  than  the  members  of  the 
Supreme  Court  have  the  members  of  Congress  taken  an  oath  to  uphold 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  members  of  Congress 
to-day  who  are  authorized  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to 
levy  taxes  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  debts  of  the  United  States 
and  providing  for  the  maintenance  of  the  General  Government  know 
in  their  own  consciences  that  they  have  no  right  to  levy  a  tax  for  the 
purpose  of  regulating  competition  between  different  industries.  Gen- 
tlemen, it  does  seem  to  me  (I  can  not  throw  it  away  or  get  it  out  of 
my  mind)  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  is  asked  absolutely 
to  disregard  the  highest  obligation  which  they  have  assumed. 

I  appear  here  to-day  as  an  advocate.  I  appear  as  an  attorney.  I 
ask  no  more  belief  in  my  statements,  no  more  consideration  for  my 
argument,  than  is  due  to  the  statements  and  the  argument  of  a  paid 
attorney.  But  to-day,  as  I  contemplate  the  possible  results  of  this 
act,  as  I  see  the  possibility  of  any  class  of  our  citizens  or  persons 
engaged  in  any  kind  of  trade  who  believe  that  their  interests  in  that 
trade  may  be  injuriously  affected  by  some  new  rival  coming  time  and 
time  again  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  and  asking  that  that 


44  OLEOMAKGAEINE. 

new  industry  may  be  taxed  out  of  existence,  as  1  see  what  legislation 
of  this  kind  is  likely  to  lead  to,  it  seems  to  me  that  I  must  throw  off 
for  the  time  being  the  character  of  advocate  and  appear  before 
this  committee  merely  as  a  citizen,  and  that  I  must  ask  them  not  to 
make  a  precedent  by  which  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  under 
the  guise  of  internal-revenue  taxation,  is  legislating  in  order  to  destroy 
one  industry  for  the  benefit  of  another,  or  to  affect  competition  between 
two  industries  which  have  both  legitimate  rights. 

I  thank  you,  gentlemen,  very  kindly  and  heartily  for  your  attention. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  1  may  say  that  the  committee  join  me  in  thanking 
you  for  the  very  clear  and  lawyer-like  statement  of  your  views.  I 
wish  to  ask  you  one  question.  As  I  understood  you,  you  made  the 
claim,  or  admitted,  that  if  this  article  were  to  be  sold  in  its  natural 
color  it  could  not  possibly  be  sold;  that  as  to  the  ingredients,  it  might 
be  known  what  they  are;  that  they  are  all  healthful  and  good,  but  that 
if  left  in  its  natural  color  it  could  not  be  used;  that  such  a  restriction 
would  destroy  the  manufacture.  Is  that  the  ground  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  That  is  my  belief. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  said  something  about  the  necessity  of  coloring 
butter  in  order  that  it  may  be  sold. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  say  that  as  long  as  there  is  in  the  market  something 
which  people  want  and  which  they  have  been  accustomed  to  use  you  can 
not  sell  them  something  which  they  do  not  want  and  which  they  are 
not  accustomed  to  use.  Do  not  misunderstand  me,  please.  If  all  butter 
was  left  uncolored  and  if  all  oleomargarine  was  left  uncolored,  of 
course  both  oleomargarine  and  butter  would  sell,  and  they  would  sell 
upon  the  same  plane.  People  would  still  have  something  to  put  on  their 
bread,  although  they  could  not  get  what  they  wanted.  But  butter  is 
not  left  uncolored.  Butter  is  artificially  colored  yellow.  The  author 
of  this  bill  insisted  yesterday  that  that  was  absolutely  necessary 
in  order  to  meet  the  demand.  I  say  as  long  as  there  is  in  the  market, 
even  at  a  higher  price,  or  as  long  as  there  is  in  the  market  even  a  lower 
grade  of  the  kind  which  the  consumer  wants,  that  will  sell  as  against 
what  he  does  not  want. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  clients  take  the  ground  that  not  the  material, 
but  the  color,  sells  the  product? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  No,  sir.  I  beg  your  pardon;  my  clients  take  the 
ground  that  both  material  and  color  sell  it.  They  can  not  sell  it 
without  good  material;  they  can  not  sell  it  without  color.  Neither  one 
will  sell  it;  it  must  be  both. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  take  the  same  position  as  to  white  butter,  too  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Precisely.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  people  would 
go  absolutely  without  white  butter  if  the  butter  manufacturer  would 
not  give  them  what  they  wanted.  But  the  butter  manufacturer  will 
give  them  what  they  want.  I  simply  say  that  when  the  manufacturer 
of  any  article  attempts  to  run  counter  to  demand,  to  taste,  to  custom, 
he  gets  left.  I  think  there  is  a  small  demand  for  very  light  colored 
butter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  some  countries  I  have  seen  very  light  butter. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Precisely. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  was  the  fashion,  and  it  was  good. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  In  some  countries  perhaps  uncolored  oleo  could  be 
sold.  We  know  that  in  some  countries  practically  black  oleo  can  be 
sold  and  the  people  want  it;  but  where  the  demand  is  for  yellow,  neither 
white  nor  black  can  be  sold. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  45 

ORDER   OF   PROCEDURE. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  move  that  the  sessions  of  the 
committee  be  continuous  during  the  holidays,  to  the  end  that  the  com- 
mittee may  be  fully  prepared  to  report  promptly  on  the  bill  upon  the 
reconvening  of  Congress  after  the  holiday  recess. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  state  that  I  have  told  parties  who  wish  to  be 
heard,  and  I  have  told  those  representing  some  of  the  Southern  inter- 
ests, that  they  might  be  heard  as  late  as  the  3d  of  January. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  make  the  motion  because  if  the  report  runs  over 
to  the  middle  or  the  latter  part  of  January  there  is  no  possibility  of 
the  bill  being  considered  at  the  present  session  of  Congress. 

Senator  MONEY.  In  the  first  place,  there  will  be  no  one  here  during 
the  holidays  to  hear  these  gentlemen  except  the  chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  was  going  to  say  that  I  thought  there  would  be  a 
subcommittee  here,  and  any  members  of  the  committee  who  will  be 
here  I  will  name  as  a  subcommittee. 

Senator  MONEY.  There  will  not  be  any  members  of  the  committee 
here  but  yourself. 

Senator  BATE.  I  hold  in  my  hand  some  telegrams  in  regard  to  the 
matter,  and  other  Senators  I  know  have  received  similar  telegrams, 
and  the  parties  ask  that  they  may  be  heard  here  at  some  time  by  the 
committee  as  late  as  the  15th  of  January.  These  parties  are  from 
Texas,  Tennessee,  and  other  States.  They  did  not  expect  any  hearing 
during  the  holidays.  Then  let  us  fix  the  very  latest  date.  They  want 
to  come  here  as  a  committee  or  a  delegation  on  this  question.  I  may 
differ  with  them,  but,  notwithstanding,  I  think  they  are.  entitled  to  be 
heard. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Quite  a  number  of  dispatches  have  been  received, 
and,  curiously,  they  all  seem  to  name  the  same  time,  as  though  there 
was  a  little  concert.  They  name  the  15th  of  January.  But  that  is 
no  matter.  I  have  replied  to  them  that  it  would  be  impossible  to 
postpone  the  hearing  as  long  as  that  date.  Several  Senators  spoke 
to  me  yesterday  on  the  subject,  and  I  told  them  that  I  could  not  make 
any  promise  to  extend  the  hearing  after  the  3d  of  January. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  will  modify  my  motion  and  move  that  the  hearing 
be  concluded  by  the  10th  of  January. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  gives  almost  three  weeks'  notice,  and  it  strikes 
me  that  it  is  reasonable. 

Senator  BATE.  But  the  holidays  intervene. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  parties  can  be  preparing  their  statements. 
We  have  had  a  very  good  one  this  morning.  After  that  time  we  shall 
have  the  appropriation  bills,  the  army  bill,  and  all  the  other  measures 
pressing  upon  us.  We  do  not  know  exactly  what  will  be  the  state  of 
the  public  business.  Of  course  we  want  to  treat  everybody  fairly, 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  that  is  the  latest  time.  When  the  time  comes, 
if  there  is  good  reason  for  it,  the  committee  can  change  their  view, 
but  I  think  it  would  be  unwise  now  to  name  a  later  time. 

Senator  MONEY.  In  the  first  place,  I  think  it  is  unwise  to  fix  a  day 
at  all.  There  ought  not  to  be  a  termination  to  information.  I  do  not 
think  the  committee  is  likely  to  be  too  well  informed  upon  this  sub- 
ject. It  is  very  much  more  important  than  merely  the  regulation  of 
a  competitive  struggle  between  the  manufacturers  of  butter  and  oleo- 
margarine. There  are  some  millions  of  people  in  the  United  States 


46  OLEOMAKGAKIKE. 

who  can  not  buy  butter  and  who  can  buy  oleomargarine.  I  think  we 
ought  to  hear  all  who  want  to  be  heard,  if  they  have  anything  to  state. 

Of  course  we  are  not  to  be  expected  to  protract  needlessly  the  ses- 
sions of  the  committee,  but  I  do  not  think  we  ought  to  fix  a  time  for 
reporting  the  bill  or  to  terminate  the  hearing.  The  session  goes  off 
on  the  4th  of  March.  If  the  Senate  considers  this  measure  to  be  of 
the  importance  it  is  supposed  to  have  by  some  members  of  the  com- 
mittee, it  will  give  us  a  hearing,  and  it  is  very  much  better  that  it 
should  be  argued  out  right  here  than  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  as  far 
as  the  speedy  passage  of  the  bill  is  concerned. 

Therefore  I  would  prefer,  if  the  Senator  from  Nebraska  will  be 
patient,  that  he  withdraw  his  proposition  and  let  us  determine  about  a 
day  later  on  when  we  have  heard  further  and  can  see  what  else  there 
is  to  be  heard.  It  is  not  necessary  that  we  should  agree  thus  far  in 
advance  to  stop  the  hearing  on  the  3d  or  on  the  10th  of  January. 

Senator  ALLEN.  If  we  should  undertake  to  hear  all  who  wish  to  be 
heard  on  this  question  we  would  not  get  through  in  three  months. 
Why  not  have  four  or  five  or  half  a  dozen  men  selected  on  either  side 
to  address  the  committee  ? 

Senator  MONEY.  When  we  have  heard  them  we  can  then  judge 
whether  we  want  to  hear  any  more.  We  ought  not  to  shut  ourselves 
out  from  the  opportunity  of  being  enlightened  on  the  subject. 

Senator  ALLEN.  If  we  extend  the  hearings  beyond  the  10th  day  of 
January  there  is  not  the  shadow  of  a  possibility  of  acting  upon  the 
bill  at  this  Congress. 

Senator  MONEY.  As  far  as  that  argument  goes,  it  is  not  worth  any- 
thing to  me,  tor  I  would  kill  it  to-day  if  I  could.  I  am  only  talking 
for  fair  play  for  both  sides. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  am  talking  for  fair  play,  too. 

Senator  WARKEN.  I  presume  we  will  be  able  to  get  through  entirely 
by  the  10th  of  January.  I  would  say,  however,  if  we  should  get 
along  to  the  9th  of  January,  and  there  should  be  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  the  committee  who  wanted  further  light  or  information,  we 
could  extend  the  time.  I  do  not  want  to  tie  my  hands  in  the  matter. 

Senator  FOSTER.  I  second  Senator  Allen's  motion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  is  upon  the  motion  of  Senator  Allen 
that  the  hearings  be  concluded  by  the  10th  day  of  January. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to;  there  being  on  a  division — ayes  4, 
noes  4. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Let  us  have  a  yea-and-nay  vote. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  move  that  we  close  the  hearings  on  the  3d 
of  January. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  wish  it  to  appear  of  record  that  I  made  a  motion 
to  close  the  hearings  on  the  10th. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Shall  I  put  the  motion  again  ? 

Senator  WARREN.  I  move  that  the  committee  adjourn. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  am  not  inclined  to  be  factious. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  change  your  vote? 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  am  opposed  to  extending  the  hearings 
beyond  a  reasonable  length  of  time,  because  we  can  get  all  the  infor- 
mation we  may  require  out  of  the  hearings  before  the  House  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  moved  that  the  committee  adjourn  until  half 
past  10  o'clock  to-morrow. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  I  understand  that  after  to-morrow  the  hear- 
ings will  adjourn  until  the  3d  of  January? 


OLEOMAEGAKIJSTE.  47 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  that  is  not  decided. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  (at  12  o'clock  and  5  minutes  p.  m.) 
the  committee  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Friday,  December  21, 1900, 
at  10. 30  a.  in. 


FRIDAY,  December  81,  1900. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Proctor  (chairman),  Hansbrough,  Warren,  Bate, 
Money,  and  Heitfeld.  Also  Hon.  William  M.  Springer,  of  Spring- 
field, 111.,  representing  the  National  Live  Stock  Association;  Frank  W. 
Tillinghast,  representing  the  Vermont  Manufacturing  Company,  of 
Providence,  R.  I. ;  Charles  E.  Schell,  representing  the  Ohio  Butter- 
ine  Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  W.  E.  Miller,  representing  the 
Armour  Packing  Company,  of  Kansas  City,  Mo. ;  John  C.  McCoy,  of 
Kansas  City,  Mo. ;  G.  M.  Walden,  President  of  the  Kansas  City  Live 
Stock  Exchange;  Philip  E.  Mullen,  of  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  representing 
the  Armour  Packing  Company;  R.  H.  Armstrong,  of  Washington, 
D.  C.,  representing  the  Armour  Packing  Company,  and  others. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  wants  to  be  heard  this  morning? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  represent  the  Armour  Packing  Com 
pany,  of  Kansas  City. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  As  a  manufacturer? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Miller. 

STATEMENT   OF   W.  E.  MILLER. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee:  Our 
object  in  asking  for  a  hearing  before  this  honorable  committee  to-day 
is  to  make  a  final  appeal  to  you  and  members  of  the  Senate  not  to  kill 
the  butterine  industry  by  passing  the  Grout  bill.  We  shall  endeavor 
hot  to  reiterate  anything  given  in  our  testimony  before  the  Agricul- 
tural Committee  of  the  House,  which  we  ask  you  to  consider  seriously, 
together  with  what  we  present  to-day. 

The  butterine  business  is  one  of  the  valuable  branches  of  our  pack- 
ing house,  in  which  we  have  thousands  of  dollars  invested,  and  have 
spent  years  of  valuable  time  in  placing  it  where  it  is  to-day.  We 
desire  to  impress  upon  this  committee  that  manufacturers  can  not 
exist  under  the  Grout  bill.  In  the  first  place,  uncolored  butterine  is 
practically  unsalable.  It  is  unsightly  and  does  not  appeal  to  the  eye 
of  even  the  poor  man. 

This  product  has  a  creamy  appearance,  and  although  the  laws  in 
many  States  legalize  its  sale,  yet  when  we  endeavored  to  sell  it  in  two 
States,  viz,  Iowa  and  California,  we  had  to  defend  our  dealers  in  suits 
brought  by  the  dairy  commissioner  and  prove  that  it  was  not  artifi- 
cially colored,  the  slight  color  coming  from  the  materials.  After  hav- 
ing won  these  cases  in  the  lower  courts,  we  were  assured  that  such 
persecution  would  continue  as  long  as  we  offered  uncolored  butterine. 
Therefore  we  gave  up  these  States  altogether.  In  our  opinion,  a  large 
number  of  States  under  the  Grout  bill  would  take  similar  action.  The 
intention  of  the  dairyman  is  not  to  regulate  the  sale  of  this  product, 
but  to  kill  the  industry,  both  on  colored  and  uncolored  butterine. 

It  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  we  could  pay  8  cents  additional 
tax  and  sell  this  product.  The  main  object  which  prompts  a  man  to 


48 


OLEOMAEGABINE. 


buy  butterine  is  because  it  is  just  as  good  and  a  great  deal  cheaper 
than  butter.  One  grade  of  butterine  we  make  in  our  factory  costs  14 
cents  a  pound;  add  to  this  8  cents  additional  tax,  and  you  bring  it  to 
within  3  cents  of  the  cost  of  Elgin  creamery.  Butterine  is  used 
almost  exclusively  by  the  poorer  class  of  people.  It  retails  all  over 
the  West  at  from  12|  to  15  cents  a  pound  for  low  grade,  and  18  to  20 
cents  a  pound  for  high  grade.  We  speak  of  the  West  because  we  are 
more  familiar  with  that  section. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  makes  the  difference  in  the  grades? 

Mr.  MILLER.  There  is  a  difference  in  the  materials  used.  In  some 
grades  we  put  more  creamery  butter  than  we  do  in  others. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  main  difference,  is  it — the  quantity  of 
butter  that  is  put  in  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Instead  of  killing  our  industry,  we  are  perfectly  willing  that  you 
should  enact  any  law  whatsoever  which  will  prevent  fraud,  providing  the 
tax  is  not  increased  or  the  privilege  denied  us  of  making  it  attractive 
in  appearance.  We  favor  the  Wads  worth  or  the  substitute  bill,  which 
we  considered  in  the  House,  or  any  other  bill  regulating  the  marking 
or  branding  of  our  product,  so  that  it  can  not  be  sold  for  butter,  and 
we  will  assist  the  Internal-Revenue  Department  in  enforcing  same  to 
the  letter. 

At  this  juncture  we  would  like  to  introduce  as  evidence  an  article 
from  Experiment  Station  Record,  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, on  the  nutritive  value  of  oleomargarine: 

4  CTHE    NUTRITIVE    VALUE    OF    MARGARIN    COMPARED    WITH    BUTTER. 

E.  Bertarelli  (Eiv.  Ig.  e  San.  Pull.,  9  (1898),  Nos.  14,  pp.  538-545; 
15,  pp.  570-579). — Three  experiments  with  healthy  men  are  reported 
in  which  the  value  of  margarin  and  butter  was  tested  when  consumed 
as  part  of  a  simple  mixed  diet.  In  one  experiment  the  value  of  a  mix- 
ture of  olive  oil  and  colza  oil,  which  is  commonly  used  in  Italy  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Turin,  was  also  tested.  The  author  himself  was  the  sub- 
ject of  one  of  the  tests.  He  was  24  years  old.  The  subjects  of  the 
other  tests  were  2  laboratory  servants,  one  27  years  old,  the  other  32 
years  old.  The  coefficients  of  digestibility  and  the  balance  of  income 
and  outgo  of  nitrogen  in  the  different  experiments  were  as  follows: 

Digestion  experiments  with  margarin,  butter,  and  oil. 


Time. 

Coefficients  of  digestibility. 

Nitrogen. 

Protein. 

Fat. 

Carbo- 
hydrates. 

In 

food. 

In 

urine. 

In 
feces. 

Gain. 

Laboratory  servant,  P.  G.:  &)0  gm. 
white  bread,  270  gm.  veal,  70  gm. 
butter,  250-300  cc.  wine  
Laboratory  servant,  P.  G.:  500  gm. 
white  bread,  250  gm.  veal,  70 
gm.  margarin,  250-300  cc.  wine. 
Author:  450  gm.  white  bread,  250 
gm.  meat,  70  gm.  butter 

Days. 
5 

5 
6 
6 

5 
5 

5 

Per  cent. 
81.75 

79.50 
81.85 
77.80 

85.32 
82.92 
83.27 

Per  cent.  ' 
92.  67 

93.90 
94.  25 
93.73 

95.80 
95.33 
95.82 

Per  cent. 
97.  25 

97.07 
97.35 
96.70 

97.38 
97.24 
97.56 

Gms. 
15.  7 

15.7 
13.5 
13.5 

16.5 
16.9 
17.5 

Gms. 
9.6 

10.3 
10.1 
9.6 

13.2 
12.5 
13.4 

Gms. 
2.6 

3.2 
2.5 
3.1 

2.9 
3.4 
3.5 

Gms. 
3.5 

2.2 
.9 

.8 

.4 
1.0 
.6 

Author:  450  gm.  white  bread,  250 
gm.  meat,  70  gm.  margarin  
Laboratory  servant,  F.  D.  :  824  gm. 
white  bread,  250  gm.  meat,  61.6 
gm.  butter  

Laboratory  servant,  F.  D.:  859  gm. 
white  bread,  250  gm.  meat,  61.6 
gm.  margarin  . 

Laboratory  servant,  F.  D.  :  910  gm. 
white  bread,  250  gm.  meat,  61.  6 
gm.  olive  and  colza  oils 

OLEOMAEGAKINE.  49 

"The  principal  conclusions  follow:  When  properly  prepared,  mar- 
garin  differs  but  little  from,  natural  butter  in  chemical  and  physical 
properties.  On  an  average  93.5  to  96  per  cent  of  fat  was  assimilated 
when  margarin  was  consumed  and  94  to  96  per  cent  when  butter  formed 
part  of  the  diet.  The  moderate  use  of  margarin  did  not  cause  any  dis- 
turbance of  the  digestive  tract." 

I  also  submit  the  report  of  the  Illinois  live-stock  commission  inves- 
tigation regarding  tuberculosis.  It  is  as  follows: 

"We  have  before  us  the  fourteenth  annual  report  of  the  State  board 
of  live-stock  commissioners  for  the  year  ending  October  31,  1899,  and 
in  addition  there  is  a  bulletin  devoted  to  the  question  of  tuberculosis 
and  the  tuberculin  test,  containing  a  full  statement  of  every  tuberculin 
test  conducted  by  the  board  during  the  year.  In  connection  therewith 
also  excerpts  from  the  writings  of  scientific  investigators  with  rela- 
tion to  the  nature  of  tuberculosis,  its  contagion  and  methods  of  trans- 
mission. It  also  contains  the  report  of  the  College  of  Physicians  and 
Surgeons  of  Chicago  upon  the  milk  taken  from  41  cows  that  had  reacted 
under  the  tuberculin  test,  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  what  percentage 
of  the  milks  under  investigation  contained  or  transmitted  tubercule 
bacilli.  The  report  shows  that  tuberculo  bacillio  were  found  to  exist 
in  the  milk  of  16  different  animals  out  of  the  41,  or  over  39  per  cent. 
The  conclusions  of  the  scientific  investigators  in  charge  of  this  experi- 
ment were  as  follows : 

"First.  Prolonged  searching  of  the  concentrated  milk  from  cows 
showing  tuberculosis,  but  with  sound  udders,  will  reveal  bacilli  in 
about  35  per  cent  of  the  cases. 

i  'Second.  Bacilli  are  found  with  about  equal  frequency  in  the  sediment 
and  in  the  cream. 

"Third.  This  milk,  when  concentrated,  will  produce  tuberculosis  in 
the  guinea  pig  in  about  25  per  cent  of  the  cases. 

"Fourth.  Not  much  dependence  can  be  put  on  the  physical  appearance 
of  the  milk  in  cases  where  the  udder  is  not  demonstrably  involved. 

"Fifth.  While  the  large  number  of  cases  in  which  pus  cells  were  found 
in  the  milk  would  indicate  that  there  was  beginning  involvement  of  the 
udder,  there  is  no  question  but  what  the  search  for  lesions  in  these 
udders  was  far  more  careful  than  will  ever  be  possible  on  the  living 
cow,  and  therefore  the  udder  appearances  can  not  be  accepted  as  a  safe 
guide. 

"The  report  also  shows  that  during  the  period  from  May  17  to  Novem- 
ber 1,  1899,  the  board  tested  with  tuberculin  3,651  dairy  and  breeding 
cattle  of  all  ages,  of  which  number  500,  or  15.32  per  cent,  were  con- 
demned or  destroyed  and  41  were  isolated  or  held  for  retest. 

4 '  In  several  cases  which  the  board  investigated  there  was  positive 
proof  of  the  transmission  of  the  disease  through  the  milk  to  the  calves. 
The  board  also  gives  an  account  of  the  official  investigation  and  test  of 
the  herd  of  Mr.  H.  B.  Gurler,  of  De  Kalb,  111. 

"He  began  testing  for  tuberculosis  in  1895,  and  all  the  cattle  that 
reacted  were  destroyed  and  the  premises  were  thoroughly  disinfected. 
Since  that  date  the  dairy  has  been  conducted  on  strictly  sanitary  regu- 
lations; and,  also,  animals  for  the  dairy  are  tested  b^y  the  tuberculin  test 
and  all  that  successfully  passed  the  test  were  admitted  to  his  herd. 
Tests  were  also  carried  on  during  the  years  1896, 1897, 1898,  and  1899. 
None  of  them  were  found  to  be  affected,  excepting  during  the  1899  test 
some  calves  were  found  to  be  affected.  As  there  were  no  other  ani- 
S.  Rep.  2043 4 


50 


OLEOMAKGARINE. 


mals  that  responded  to  the  test  the  question  was  how  those  calves  had 
been  affected,  and  it  was  found  that  they  had  been  fed  on  milk  pro- 
cured from  a  near-by  creamery,  and  the  inference  was  that  the  creamery 
milk  was  the  cause  of  the  indication. 

' '  The  same  cause  apparently  was  found  in  the  case  of  calves  at  the 
Kane  County  almshouse  farm,  where  none  of  them  responded  to  the 
test,  neither  of  the  older  cows  or  the  j^oung,  excepting  six  yearlings 
and  one  yearling  bull,  and  upon  the  post-mortem  examination  after  the 
test  they  were  found  to  be  diseased.  It  was  proved  by  a  letter  from 
the  superintendent,  Mr.  Keyes,  that  these  calves  had  been  fed  on  milk 
that  had  been  bought  at  a  butter  factory." 

I  also  submit  resolutions  against  further  legislation  on  butterine, 
which  are  not  in  the  records  of  the  proceedings  before  the  House. 

NEW   YORK   BUTTER   MARKET. 

Receipts  of  butter  and  cheese  for  six  days  ending  December  11,  1900. 


Butter. 

Cheese. 

Wednesday  

Packages. 
4,120 

Boxes. 
3,066 

Thursday 

3  206 

7  015 

Friday  

5,357 

5,112 

Saturday                    . 

3  463 

5  258 

Monday 

7  297 

3  005 

Tuesday  

10,083 

12,  483 

Total  six  days 

33  526 

35  939 

Last  week,  six  days  

29  363 

30  173 

Same  week  last  year 

25  949 

18  853 

Receipts  since  May  1  

1,  376,  189 

1,  148,  985 

Receipts  same  time  last  year  

1  307,365 

968  566 

Senator  BATE.  How  many  pounds  are  there  in  a  package  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  is  supposed  to  be  60  pounds.  The  creameries  always 
estimate  that  a  package  is  a  tub  of  60  pounds. 

We  contend  that  the  manufacturers  of  butter  do  not  need  protection. 
We  regret  that  it  is  impossible  to  get  the  complete  figures  on  the  amount 
of  butter  produced  in  the  United  States.  From  reports  which  are 
made  public  the  business  is  prosperous  and  increasing.  Reports  from 
both  Missouri  and  Kansas  show  a  good  increase  over  last  year.  The 
following,  from  the  New  York  Produce  Review  and  American  Cream- 
ery of  December  12,  show  the  healthy  condition  of  that  market: 

"  Conditions  affecting  the  general  market  have  not  changed  materi- 
ally since  our  last  review,  except  that  we  have  had  an  increase  of  fully 
4,000  packages  in  the  week's  receipts.  The  good  prices  ruling  here 
have  attracted  a  larger  part  of  current  productions,  and  several  car- 
loads of  storage  butter  have  come  forward  from  Western  refrigerators.' 
On  the  whole,  trade  has  been  quieter.  Consumption  has  been  lessened 
by  the  full  prices  asked  by  retailers,  and  the  distribution  to  out-of-town 
buyers  has  been  quite  moderate.  This  has  brought  the  supply  and 
demand  closer  together  and  convinced  operators  that  the  safety  of  the 
market  lies  in  very  conservative  action  until  after  the  holidays.  Of 
course  much  depends  on  the  available  supply.  We  have  probably 
reached  the  lowest  point  of  production,  and  in  some  sections  of  the 
country  the  make  is  on  the  increase.  Beside  this,  the  home  demand  is 
lighter,  farmers'  rolls  being  more  plenty  and  of  better  quality,  and 
these  are  going  to  a  good  deal  bt%  the  trade  in  the  local  towns  and  to  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  51 

patrons  of  the  creameries;  this  results  in  larger  shipments  of  the  fresh 
product.  Then,  too,  there  is  still  a  large  stock  of  refrigerator  butter 
not  only  here  but  at  other  storage  centers,  and  holders  feel  that  the 
time  has  come  for  disposing  of  as  many  of  these  goods  as  possible. 
Naturally,  the  freezer  butter  fills  a  large  place  because  of  the  difference 
in  price,  and  this  is  urged  as  a  reason  why  no  further  advance  should  be 
attempted.  In  view  of  the  conditions  prevailing,  we  regard  our  market 
as  quite  high  enough  for  safety." 

I  will  also  read  the  following  from  the  Elgin  Dairy  Report,  D.  W . 
Willson,  editor,  under  date  of  November  15, 1900,  indicating  increased 
business  in  Chicago,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Boston,  which  are 
the  four  largest  butter  markets  in  the  United  States.  The  Elgin  Dairy 
Report  is  supposed  to  be  the  organ  of  the  creamery  people  in  Illinois. 
This  is  an  article  on  the  increased  consumption  of  butter.  It  says: 

u  Inquiry  in  Chicago,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Boston  indicates 
an  increased  consumption  of  butter  by  the  people  who  depend  upon 
those  sources  of  supply.  The  reason  given  for  this  increased  con- 
sumption varies  according  to  the  opinion  of  parties  giving  the  same. 

"The  New  York  people  claim  that  the  increase  in  population  and 
the  better  class  of  goods  arriving  on  the  market  and  the  better  condi- 
tions prevailing  among  mechanics  and  working  people  has  increased 
the  consumption  of  butter  in  their  city. 

' i  Boston  people  say  about  the  same  thing.  However,  whatever  the 
cause  may  be,  it  is  a  gratifying  result  to  all  interested  in  the  developing 
and  upbuilding  of  the  dairy  industry.  We  have  contended  for  many 
years  that  improvement  in  the  quality  of  butter  placed  upon  the  mar- 
ket will  induce  greater  consumption.  We  all  know  that  if  on  our  own 
tables  or  on  the  tables  of  hotels  or  boarding  houses  the  butter  is  good 
we  will  use  more  than  if  the  butter  is  poor. 

"We  call  attention  to  the  readers  of  the  Report  to  this  increased 
consumption  as  reported  by  parties  who  are  handling  the  goods,  that 
it  may  be  an  inducement  to  the  makers  to  put  more  skill  and  more 
care  into  the  manufacture  of  their  goods.  While  the  proportion  of 
good  butter  has  increased  during  the  past  ten  years,  it  is  not  yet  what 
it  should  be.  The  reason  of  this  large  proportion  of  medium  to  poor 
butter  placed  upon  the  market  is  a  problem  that  the  education  and 
enlightenment  that  has  been  promulgated  through  the  dairy  press  and 
the  dairy  associations  has  not  solved." 

Mr.  Chairman,  good  butter  needs  no  legislation  to  give  it  a  price. 
Good  oleomargarine  asks  no  legislation  against  chemically  mixed  and 
chemically  purified  butter.  The  makers  of  butter  and  the  makers  of 
oleomargarine  ought  to  be  equal  before  the  law.  Each  industry  should 
thrive  or  decay  because  of  its  own  merit  or  demerit.  Those  who  wish 
to  buy  oleomargarine  because  it  is  as  wholesome  and  cheaper  than 
butter  should  be  free  to  do  so.  The  dairymen  have  obtained  protec- 
tion against  oleomargarine  interests  because  they  are  more  numerous. 
They  are  protected  at  the  expense  of  the  people,  not  because  they  are 
more  deserving,  but  because  they  are  stronger.  It  is  a  system  of 
might  against  right,  which,  if  extended,  will  soon  deprive  honest 
American  citizens  of  their  liberty  or  hope  for  constitutional  redress. 

The  prejudice  of  the  masses  comes  from  the  jealousy  of  the  farmer. 
Because  of  the  fear  that  he  might  be  injured  by  the  production  of  oleo- 
margarine, the  press  of  this  country  have  given  columns  to  the  conten- 
tions of  the  agricultural  interests  whenever  its  representatives  went  to 


52  OLEOMARGARINE. 

State  capitals  for  the  purpose  of  wiping  out  the  oleo  side  and  fostering 
its  own,  and  on  few  occasions  has  it  said  a  friendly  word  for  oleomar- 
garine. Public  opinion,  biased  by  this  ex-parte  work  of  the  press, 
falls  into  line,  and  casting  upon  it  eyes  of  scorn,  pins  its  faith  upon 
butter.  No  unprejudiced  person  can  view  our  establishment  and  fail 
to  notice  one  absolute  characteristic,  cleanliness — such  cleanliness  that 
the  far-famed  Holland  housewife  is  put  to  shame.  No  one  can  visit 
the  so-called  dairies  that  dot  the  rural  districts  and  fail  to  note  that 
cleanliness  is  not  a  characteristic.  Were  the  oleomargarine  manufac- 
turers, the  packers,  the  cattlemen,  and  the  cotton-seed  oil  producers 
animated  by  the  same  strong  feeling  of  self-interest  which  seems  to 
permeate  the  very  being  of  our  farmer  friends,  and  did  we  use  our 
influence  with  the  press  of  the  country,  the  masses  would  gain  an 
entirely  different  view. 

Warner  Miller,  of  New  York,  who  was  the  champion  of  the  butter 
interests  when  the  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound  was  put  on  butterine,  some 
time  afterwards  visited  Chicago  and  was  incidentally  taken  through 
our  butterine  factory,  which  was  then  in  operation.  He  had  never 
seen  butterine  made,  but  the  New  York  dairymen  had  told  him  what 
filthy,  vile  stuff  it  was.  We  took  special  pains  to  show  him  every 
detail  of  its  manufacture,  and  when  he  had  comprehended  it  all,  espe- 
cially its  purity  and  cleanliness  of  manufacture,  he  was  introduced  to 
Mr.  P.  D.  Armour.  Senator  Miller  understood  the  general  conspiracy 
of  which  he  was  the  deluded  victim,  and  he  confessed  to  Mr.  Armour 
that  if  he  had  known  as  much  about  butterine  the  year  before  he  would 
have  fought  such  a  measure  instead  of  being  its  champion. 

Our  product  has  been  so  maliciously  misrepresented  that  man}^  who 
are  opposed  to  it  now  might  also  change  their  views  upon  close  investi- 
gation, as  did  Senator  Miller.  Butterine  is  pure,  wholesome,  and 
economical;  therefore  we  appeal  to  you  in  the  name  of  justice,  equity, 
and  right  that  you  allow  us  to  exist  under  the  present  law  or  under 
one  similar  to  the  Wadsworth  or  substitute  measure  discussed  in  the 
House. 

Just  here  I  would  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the 
methods  pursued  by  the  so-called  National  Dairy  Association.  They 
found  it  impossible  to  win  by  fair,  honest  competition.  Therefore 
they  formed  a  political  organization  with  Boss  Knight,  who  dictated 
the  policy,  and  also  dictated  who  should  come  to  Congress.  Anyone 
who  would  not  agree  to  vote  for  the  Grout  bill  was  boycotted,  maligned, 
and  abused.  All  sorts  of  vile  literature  was  sent  out  from  Chicago  by 
Boss  Knight  into  the  district  in  which  the  candidate  was  located.  Ask 
Congressman  Wadsworth,  of  New  York,  or  Long,  of  Kansas,  or 
Cowherd,  of  Kansas  City,  something  about  this. 

I  will  say  just  here  that  Congressman  Cowherd,  from  our  district, 
was  the  nominee  on  the  Democratic  side,  and  Brown  on  the  Republican 
side. 

About  two  weeks  before  the  election  a  committee  from  the  Produce 
Exchange  visited  Mr.  Cowherd  and  asked  him  how  he  stood  on  the 
Grout  bill.  He  said  he  was  against  it  and  would  vote  against  it.  They 
also  visited  Mr.  Brown,  and  Mr.  Brown  tacitly  gave  them  to  understand 
that  he  would  vote  for  the  bill.  Of  course  the  friends  of  Mr.  Cowherd 
in  Kansas  City  did  not  think  it  would  be  policy  for  him  to  favor  this 
bill,  as  there  are  six  or  eight  packing  houses  located  there,  several  of 
them  manufacturing  butterine.  Therefore  he  did  not  think  it  was  in 


OLEOMARGARINE.  53 

his  interest  to  support  the  bill.  These  dairy  people  sent  out  commit- 
tees in  all  the  precincts  and  all  this  territory,  and  did  all  sorts  of  things 
to  try  to  defeat  him. 

The  same  thing  is  true  of  Congressman  Long.  Any  one  not  believ- 
ing my  statement  can  consult  these  three  men  and  find  that  this  was  the 
truth. 

All  sorts  of  vile  literature  was  sent  out  through  the  district,  and  I 
arn  told  that  it  all  emanated  from  Boss  Knight,  of  Chicago.  In  fact, 
most  of  the  literature  which  Congressmen  and  Senators  have  been  flooded 
with  emanated  from  one  source.  They  are  printed  and  the  language 
of  each  is  the  same.  I  understand  that  some  postal  cards  have  been 
sent  here  which  were  originally  sent  out  by  Knight  asking  for  the  sig- 
natures of  four  or  five  men  in  the  neighborhood.  That  one  party  would 
sign  for  four  or  five  men,  and  these  cards  would  be  sent  here  to  Con- 
gressmen and  Senators. 

We  feel  just  this  way:  Whenever  we  have  got  to  organize  a  political 
association  to  defend  our  product,  the  Armour  Packing  Company,  for 
one,  will  go  out  of  business.  We  can  use  our  factory  for  some  other 
part  of  our  business. 

I  should  like  to  read  these  resolutions — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Before  doing  so  let  me  ask  you  a  question:  Can 
this  difference  in  the  two  grades  of  butterine  be  detected  by  the  taste  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Readily? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir.  The  better  grades  have,  of  course,  more  but- 
ter flavor  than  the  cheaper  grades. 

Senator  BATE.  Because  you  put  in  more  butter? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  butter  and  cream. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  thought  it  was  claimed  that  it  could  not  be  detected 
from  the  best  dairy  butter  anyway. 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  best  grades  you  can  not  tell  from  the  best  grades 
of  butter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  could  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  could.  But  it  would  be  very  hard  for  anyone  to 
detect  the  difference  between  the  lower  grades  and  the  good  grades  of 
dairy  butter. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  It  requires  a  cultivated  taste,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  for  an  inexperienced  person  it  would  be  very 
hard  to  distinguish  the  difference. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  So  a  low  grade  could  be  palmed  off  on  an 
inexperienced  or  tasteless  person  as  a  high  grade? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes;  it  is  very  hard  to  distinguish  between  the  two. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  dp  you  say  is  the  difference  in  price  between 
these  two  grades  of  butterine? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  simply  mentioned  one  grade.  I  said  we  manufac- 
tured one  grade  that  costs  us  about  14  cents. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  wholesale  price? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  BATE.  That  is  the  lowest  grade? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  a  higher  grade. 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  is  one  of  the  highest  grades  we  make.  We  have 
a  lower  grade  that  costs  a  little  less  than  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  less? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  a  cent  and  a  half  to  two  cents. 


54  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  BATE.  But  to  increase  the  tax  on  it  to  8  cents  would  take  it 
practically  out  of  the  market? 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  would  make  it  practically  unsalable. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  What  percentage  of  pure  butter  do  you  put  in  oleo- 
margarine ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  varies — 25  to  30  per  cent. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  What  are  the  other  ingredients  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Oleo  oil,  neutral  lard,  coloring. 

Senator  BATE.  What  coloring  do  you  use  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  use  coloring  that  is  manufactured  by  the  Wells- 
Richardson  Company,  of  Burlington,  Vt.  That  is  coloring  that  is  sold 
quite  universally  over  the  United  States. 

Senator  BATE.  What  is  the  technical  name  of  it? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  do  not  know  the  composition  of  it.  We  simply  buy 
it  as  improved  butter  coloring.  Their  process,  I  think,  is  secret.  I 
do  not  think  they  give  to  the  public  the  formula  for  making  it. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  That  is  purchased  also  by  dairymen  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  It  is  the  same  coloring  matter  that  is  used  by 
dairymen  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir.  I  would  say  just  here  that  the  Creamery 
Package  Company  have  offices  in  all  the  large  cities  in  the  United 
States,  and— 

Senator  BATE.  Where  is  the  head  of  that  establishment? 

Mr.  MILLER.  In  Chicago.  They  have  offices  all  over  the  United 
States,  and  of  course  they  supply  the  creamery  men  as  well  as  the 
butterine  manufacturers.  I  asked  their  manager  in  Kansas  City  one 
day  what  coloring  he  handled,  and  he  said  that  he  handled  several 
grades,  but  he  had  no  call  for  any  but  the  Wells-Richardson  improved 
butter  coloring,  and  that  was  used  exclusively  by  the  butter  makers  as 
well  as  by  the  butterine  manufacturers. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Let  me  ask  a  question.  Do  you  know  whether  the 
manufacturers  of  creamery  butter  use  oleo  or  neutral  lard  in  their 
manufacture  of  butter? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  could  not  say  as  to  that.  I  know  that  we  would 
refuse  to  sell  a  creamery  any  materials  that  they  would  try  to  mix 
with  creamery  butter.  We  would  not  care  to  be  a  party  to  a  fraud  of 
that  kind. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  grade  of  butter  would  be  used  in  the  best 
quality  of  butterine? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  very  best  creamery  butter  that  we  can  buy. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Because  a  less  quantity  of  it  will  answer  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Of  course  it  is  to  give  it  a  fine  flavor.  I  would  say 
just  here  that  it  has  been  a  fact  that  the  manufacturers  for  years  have 
endeavored  to  put  the  very  best  materials  in  their  butterine;  not  the 
cheapest,  but  the  very  best  they  could  get.  We  can  not  use  any  of 
the  baser  fats  of  the  steer  in  the  manufacture  of  oleo  oil,  because  it 
would  give  it  a  rank,  tallowy  taste.  We  use  the  very  choicest  fats  of 
the  beef. 

Senator  PROCTOR.  Can  not  the  cheaper  lower  grades  of  fats  be  puri- 
fied so  as  to  conceal  the  grade  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  They  are  perfectly  pure,  but  of  course  they  have  a 
very  tallowy  taste. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  that  taste  can  not  be  corrected  2 


OLE  OMAKG  AEINE .  5  5 

Mr.  MILLEE.  No;  not  without  injuring  the  quality  of  the  oil. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  use  of  paraffin 
in  the  making  of  oleo  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  As  I  stated  before  the  House,  that  is  unreasonable. 
I  can  not  see  how  any  sane  man  could  believe  that  for  a  minute  if  he 
ever  investigated  the  question.  I  investigated  this  fact  last  winter. 
Good  paraffin  costs  14  cents  a  pound,  and  I  can  not  see  any  object  in 
putting  it  in  butterine.  It  would  not  give  it  any  flavor;  it  would  not 
add  to  the  texture;  and  we  can  get  materials  that  do  not  cost  us  14 
cents  a  pound  to  put  in  the  product.  Therefore  I  can  not  see  any 
object  whatever  in  using  it.  I  have  never  heard  but  one  test  made, 
and  that  was  made  in  New  York — the  one  that  the  dairy  people  have 
made  so  much  stock  of — and  1  expect  that  that  sample  was  prepared  by 
some  dairyman.  If  there  was  any  object  to  be  accomplished,  if  we 
could  decrease  the  cost  of  our  butterine,  if  we  could  improve  the 
flavor  in  any  way  by  using  paraffin,  some  unscrupulous  manufacturer 
might  do  it,  but  there  is  no  reason  for  it.  There  is  nothing  that 
would  be  gained  by  usipg  it. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  your  establishment 
at  least  you  know  positively  that  it  is  not  used  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  have  never  had  a  pound  of  paraffin  in  our  factory. 

Senator  WARREN.  Are  there  any  other  factories  that  you  either 
know  or  suspect  of  using  it? 

Mr.  MILLER.  None  whatever.  Last  winter,  when  that  question 
came  up,  I  got  a  sample  of  butterine  from  every  manufacturer  in  the 
United  States,  and  I  had  our  chemist  examine  the  samples  for  paraffin, 
and  he  said  he  found  no  trace  of  it. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  do  not  know  of  any  creameries  which 
use  butterine  or  oleomargarine  in  connection  with  their  product? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  it  has  been  currently  reported  that  they  did, 
but  I  do  not  know  of  any  instance. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Current  report,  of  course,  is  not  very  good 
testimony. 

Mr.  MILLER.  No. 

Senator  BATE.  Tell  us  what  are  the  proportions  of  the  elements,  the 
ingredients  with  which  you  make  your  material,  butterine. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Of  course  those  are  trade  secrets,  more  or  less. 

Senator  BATE.  I  do  not  want  you  to  state  the  secrets,  but  I  wish  to 
know  how  much  butter  and  how  much  cream  you  use  in  manufacturing 
your  product. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  not  required  under  the  internal- re  venue 
laws  to  state  the  ingredients? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Of  course,  but  it  is  given  collectively. 

Senator  WARREN.  It  is  given  in  the  report  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Revenue,  and  is  in  the  evidence  taken  before  the  House  as  it 
came  from  the  Internal-Revenue  Department. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  The  specific  ingredients  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  BATE.  Then  what  objection  is  there  to  giving  them? 

Senator  WARREN.  He  may  not  be  authorized  to  give  it,  but  it  is 
important  that  some  one  should  file  it. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Such  a  paper  was  filed,  giving  all  the  materials  used 
in  all  the  factories.  That  would  be  the  average  for  all  the  factories. 

Senator  BATE.  You  speak  of  that  which  was  given  in  the  House  2 


56  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  BATE.  Do  you  know  in  whose  testimony  it  will  be  found? 

Senator  WARREN.  You  will  find  it  more  quickly  by  looking  for  the 
table.  It  is  tabulated  matter. 

Mr.  MILLER.  There  was  a  resolution  passed  by  the  House  calling 
on  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  give  the  materials  used  for  the 
past  year  in  butterine.  You  will  find  that  given  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury.  It  was  not  in  the  testimony  given  by  the  manufacturers. 

Senator  BATE.  But  when  you  are  silent  upon  the  subject,  it  may 
create  the  impression  that  you  have  a  different  formula  from  what  is 
given  there. 

Mr.  MILLER.  None  whatever.  I  will  say  that  it  ranges  about  this 
way:  We  use  about  35  per  cent,  or  say  30  per  cent,  of  oleo  oil  and  30 
per  cent  of  neutral.  The  balance  would  be  cream,  butter,  and  salt. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Cotton-seed  oil? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Cotton-seed  oil  in  the  cheaper  grades. 

Senator  BATE.  What  about  beef  fat? 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  is  oleo  oil.     Oleo  oil  comes  from  beef. 

Senator  BATE.  Do  you  mix  the  fat  from  lard  and  the  fat  from  beef  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Those  are  all  churned  together. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Those  are  the  later  products  of  the  lard  and  tallow  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  BATE.  Do  you  use  steam  in  pressing  them,  or  how  do  you 
press  them? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  materials? 

Senator  BATE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MILLER.  They  are  all  heated  to  a  temperature  of  about  155  to 
160  degrees. 

Senator  BATE.  Fahrenheit? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir.  Professor  Wiley,  the  Chief  Chemist  of  the 
Agricultural  Department,  made  a  statement  before  the  House  com- 
mittee to  the  effect  that  this  temperature  is  sufficient  to  kill  any  germs 
whatever  that  might  be  in  these  materials. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  use  to  harden  them,  to  make  them 
solid? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  oil  is  heated  to  a  temperature  of  about  155  or  160 
degrees.     Then  it  is  placed  in  presses,  and  we  get  two  products  from 
it,  oleo  oil  and  stearin.     Stearin  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  candles 
We  do  not  use  stearin  at  all  in  the  manufacture  of  butterine. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  latter  oils  are  tallow  and  lard  ?  I  would  not 
suppose  that  they  would  have  the  consistency,  that  is,  they  would  not 
be  solid  enough  to  stand  for  hard  butter,  and  I  understand  that  oleo 
keeps  well  in  a  hot  climate.  Is  there  not  something  used  to  harden  it? 

Mr.  MILLER.  All  these  materials  are  churned  together,  and  when 
taken  from  the  churn  they  are  in  a  liquid  form.  It  is  run  into  vats 
filled  with  either  ice-cold  water  or  cracked  ice,  and  after  it  has  been 
stirred  for  some  time  it  congeals. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  remains  solid? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  BATE.  And  then  it  is  put  in  a  mold  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  then  placed  in  tubs  and  made  in  prints 
and  rolls. 

This  is  a  petition  from  the  South  St.  Paul  Live  Stock  Exchange: 

"To  the  honorable  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States: 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  57 

"Your  petitioner,  the  South  St.  Paul  Live  Stock  Exchange,  respect- 
fully represents  to  your  honorable  body  that  it  is  an  association  of  live- 
stock dealers  engaged  in  buying  and  selling,  feeding  and  shipping,  and 
slaughtering  live  stock,  and  was  organized,  among  other  things,  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  the  best  interests  of  the  live-stock  industry  of 
the  Northwest,  jealously  guarding  the  interests  of  the  producer  and 
consumer  alike. 

"Your  petitioner,  in  behalf  of  its  constituency,  desires  to  enter  its 
emphatic  protest  against  the  enactment  of  House  bill  No.  6,  introduced 
by  Mr.  Tawney,  providing  for  a  tax  on  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
oleomargarine.  In  support  of  this  protest,  a  few  of  the  many  reasons 
that  might  be  mentioned  are  hereinafter  set  forth." 

I  will  say  just  here  that  this  petition  was  drawn  when  the  former 
bill,  the  Tawney  bill,  was  before  the  House  more  prominently  than 
the  Grout  bill.  That  bijl  was  practically  the  same  as  the  Grout  bill, 
and  the  petition  would  of  course  apply  to  any  further  legislation  on 
butterine. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  That  we  will  print  with  the  rest. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  There  is  no  need  to  read  it  unless  you  care  to  do  so. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Very  well,  if  the  committee  would  not  like  to  hear  it. 

Senator  BATE.  I  think  that  you  had  better  read  it. 

Mr.  MILLER.  All  right.     The  petition  proceeds: 

' '  The  measure  is  a  species  of  class  legislation  of  the  most  dangerous 
kind,  calculated  to  build  up  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  another 
equally  as  important.  It  seeks  to  impose  an  unjust,  uncalled-for,  and 
unwarranted  burden  upon  one  of  the  principal  commercial  industries 
of  the  country.  Manufacturers  can  not  assume  this  added  burden  and 
continue  to  sell  their  product  in  competition  with  butter.  The  passage 
of  this  measure  would  throttle  competition,  render  useless  the  immense 
establishments  erected  at  a  great  expense  for  the  manufacture  of  oleo- 
margarine, deprive  thousands  of  employees  of  the  opportunity  to  gain 
a  livelihood,  and  deny  the  people,  and  especially  the  working  people, 
a  wholesome  article  of  diet. 

' '  The  butter  fat  of  an  average  beef  animal  for  the  purpose  of  man- 
ufacturing oleomargarine  is  worth  from  $3  to  $4  per  head  more  than 
before  the  advent  of  oleomargarine.  This  has  increased  the  value  of 
the  beef  steer  and  consequently  to  the  profit  of  the  producer. 

"  To  legislate  this  article  of  commerce  out  of  existence,  as  the  pas- 
sage of  this  law  would  surely  do,  would  compel  slaughterers  to  use 
this  fat  for  tallow,  and  depreciate  the  market  value  of  beef  cattle  of 
this  country  $3  to  $4  per  head,  which  would  entail  a  loss  on  the 
producer  of  this  country  of  millions  and  millions  of  dollars. 

"The  use  of  this  fat  for  the  purpose  set  forth  is  an  encouragement  to 
the  producer  to  improve  his  herd  and  raise  a  class  of  thoroughbred  cat- 
tle capable  of  carrying  the  fat,  and  thus  resulting  in  a  benefit  to  all. 

"  The  rights  and  privileges  of  the  producers  of  beef  cattle  should  be 
as  well  respected  as  those  of  others,  and  as  they  are  the  beneficiaries 
in  the  manufacture  of  this  wholesome  article  of  food  they  should  not 
be  burdened  with  unnecessary  special  taxes  levied  avowedly  for  the 
purpose  of  prohibiting  its  production. 

"The  product  of  the  beef  steer  should  receive  at  the  hands  of  Con- 
gress no  greater  exactions  than  are  imposed  on  competing  food  prod- 
ucts. The  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  is  already  surrounded 


58  OLEOMARGARINE. 

with  numerous  safeguards  which  Congress  in  its  wisdom  has  seen  fit 
to  provide. 

"Experience  has  taught  us  that  it  is  just  what  a  large  majority  of  the 
people  in  this  country  want,  and  in  behalf  of  the  producers  and  con- 
sumers of  the  great  Northwest  we  do  solemnly  protest  against  the 
enactment  of  legislation  calculated  to  ruin  a  great  industry. 

"CHARLES  L.  HAAS, 
u  President  South  St.  Paul  Live  Stock  Exchange. 

"H.  B.  CARROLL, 
"  Secretary  South  St.  Paul  Lwe  Stock  Exchange." 

These  are  resolutions  passed  by  the  Texas  Cotton-Seed  Crushers' 
Association: 

"DEAR  SIR:  At  a  meeting  of  the  Cotton-Seed  Crushers'  Association, 
held  in  Dallas  on  Tuesday,  November  14, 1899,  T.  P.  Sullivan,  of  Jef- 
ferson; R.  K.  Erwin,  of  Waxahachie;  W.  R.  Moore,  of  Ardmore,  Ind.  T., 
and  Robert  Gibson,  secretary,  of  Dallas,  were  appointed  a  committee 
to  draft  resolutions  expressive  of  the  sense  of  the  meeting  on  the 
matters  discussed.  The  resolutions  as  submitted  were  unanimously 
adopted,  and  are  as  follows: 

"MARION  SANSOM,  Chairman: 

"The  undersigned  committee  appointed  by  you  beg  leave  to  submit 
the  following  preamble  and  resolutions: 

"Whereas  the  line  of  industrial  business  represented  by  this  asso- 
ciation is  coextensive  with  the  entire  area  of  the  cotton  cultivated  zone 
of  our  Southern  States,  and  in  conjunction  with  cotton  in  its  various 
uses,  represents  the  wealth  of  the  South;  and 

"Whereas  Texas  represents  over  30  per  cent  of  the  cotton  and  cot- 
ton seed  annually  produced  in  the  United  States,  any  embargo  placed 
by  legislation  on  the  growth  and  development  of  our  industry  is  detri- 
mental to  the  vast  interests  committed  to  our  care.  It  is  therefore 
of  most  vital  necessity  that  all  avenues  leading  to  the  sale  and  con- 
sumption of  our  cotton-oil  products  should  be  free  and  unrestricted, 
and  inasmuch  as  cotton  oil  is  used  to  a  large  extent  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  butterine,  which  is  a  most  wholesome  and  healthful  substitute 
for  butter;  and 

Whereas  a  tax  at  present  exists  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  the  manu- 
facture of  this  most  healthful  article  of  food,  and  that  it  is  contem- 
plated to  introduce  at  the  next  session  of  Congress  an  increased  tax  of 
10  cents  per  pound  on  same:  It  is,  therefore, 

" 'Resolved,  That  this  association  enter  its  protest  against  the  existing 
tax  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  butterine  and  ask  for  its  abrogation  and 
repeal,  and  against  the  introduction  or  adoption  of  any  future  tax  on 
same  as  an  article  of  food,  as  it  directly  afl'ects  our  great  industry  both 
at  home  and  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  where  a  cheap  and  wholesome 
article  of  food,  such  as  butterine,  is  appreciated. 

"Resolved,  That  we  believe  the  imposition  of  a  special  tax  of  this 
nature  is  class  legislation  and  should  be  combated  by  all  the  means  at 
our  command,  and  that  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress 
are  hereby  requested  to  give  us  all  the  necessary  aid  in  this  behalf; 
and  it  is  further 

' '  Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  this  association  transmit  a  copy  of 
these  resolutions  to  each  cotton-oil  mill  in  the  South,  with  the  request 


OLEOMARGARINE.  59 

that  they  interest  their  Senators  and  Representatives  therein,  and  also 
to  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  from  Texas. 

"T.  P.  SULLIVAN,  Chairman,  Jefferson,  Tex. 

"R.  K.  ERWIN,  Waxahachie,  Tex. 

"W.  R.  MOORE,  Ardmore,  2nd.  T. 

"ROBERT  GIBSON,  Secretary,  Dallas,  Tex." 

Senator  WARREN.  May  I  ask  a  question  at  that  point?  You  are 
exporting  oleomargarine  to  some  extent? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  WARREN.  Can  you  give  us  some  idea  of  the  percentage  of 
the  total  amount  manufactured  that  is  exported  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  About  3,000,000  pounds  were  exported  last  year. 

Senator  PROCTOR.  Out  of  what  quantity  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Out  of  107,000,000  pounds. 

Senator  BATE.  Where  does  it  go  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Most  of  it  to  southern  tropical  climates.  It  is  sold 
in  countries  where  the  climate  is  too  warm  to  permit  butter  to  keep. 
We  can  pack  butterine  in  hermetically  sealed  tins,  and  it  will  keep  for 
two  or  three  years  perfectly  sweet. 

Senator  WARREN.  Have  you  been  exporting  it  right  along  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  have  been  doing  some  export  business  for  the  last 
few  years. 

Senator  WARREN.  Is  that  business  growing  or  is  it  not  growing  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  is  not  growing  very  rapidly.  The  territory,  of 
course,  is  limited. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Do  you  get  a  rebate  of  the  tax  when  you  export  it? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  WARREN.  I  wish  to  ask  another  question  which  is  not  in 
connection  with  that  point. 

Mr.  MILLER.  All  right. 

Senator  WARREN.  Have  you  ever  given  the  matter  any  attention  as 
to  the  sensibility  of  the  product  which  you  manufacture  and  that  of 
butter  in  taking  in  the  odors  of  impurities  that  are  surrounding  it;  for 
instance,  in  some  close  mining  camp  or  outpost.  Butter,  as  we  all 
know,  takes  on  any  odor  that  may  be  existing  and  becomes  rancid 
very  quickly  from  exposure.  Do  you  claim  that  oleomargarine  is 
more  hardy  or  less  so  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  is  much  more  so.  It  will,  perhaps,  take  up  for- 
eign odors.  For  instance,  if  you  ship  a  tub  of  butterine  in  a  car  of 
oranges,  of  course,  by  the  time  the  butterine  reaches  its  destination  it 
will  taste  like  oranges  instead  of  butterine;  but  it  will  keep  much 
longer  than  butter.  You  can  put  a  package  of  butterine  in  a  room  and 
let  it  stay  there  for  three  or  four  months,  and  it  will  be  perfectly  sweet. 
It  never  gets  rancid.  It  may  have  lost  the  butter  flavor,  but  it  is  still 
sweet. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  about  kerosene?     Does  not  that  taint  it? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Oh,  yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  very  quickly,  I  suppose.  It  will  taint  either 
butter  or  butterine. 

Senator  BATE.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  rebate  you  were  asked 
about? 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  pay  2  cents  a  pound  tax,  you  understand,  on  domes- 
tic goods.  Of  course,  in  case  we  ship  out  of  the  country  we  get  the  2 
cents  a  pound  back. 


60  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  BATE.  On  what  principle — the  reciprocity  treaty  ? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  It  is  a  provision  in  the  original  oleomargarine  act. 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  is  in  the  original  oleomargaine  act  of  1886. 

Senator  BATE.  You  get  a  rebate  under  that  act  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  simply  a  drawback  of  2  cents  a  pound. 

Senator  BATE.  Then,  in  point  of  fact,  you  pay  no  tax  on  it?  You 
get  the  tax  back? 

Mr.. MILLER.  No,  sir;  we  pay  no  tax  on  the  export. 

Senator  BATE.  And  you  pay  a  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound  on  what  you 
sell  here? 

Mr.  MILLER.  On  all  that  is  sold  for  domestic  use. 

Senator  BATE.   But  }^ou  do  not  have  to  do  that  on  exports  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir. 

Senator  WARREN.  It  is  the  reverse  of  the  ordinary  tariff. 

Mr.  MILLER.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  a  fine  of  2  cents  imposed  by 
the  dairy  interests  on  the  article  sold  here,  while  when  exported  it 
does  not  interfere  with  the  dairy  interests  and  we  get  a  rebate. 

Senator  BATE.  The  law  is  more  lenient  to  the  man  who  lives  abroad 
than  at  home. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  is  the  same  as  the  internal-revenue  tax  on  whisky. 
That  tax  is  taken  off  of  whisky  when  it  is  exported. 

Mr.  MILLER.  This  is  a  resolution  passed  by  the  Sioux  Cit}r  Live 
Stock  Exchange: 

"Whereas  a  bill  has  been  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives known  as  House  bill  6,  providing  for  an  amendment  of  'An  act 
defining  butter,  also  imposing  a  tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufac- 
ture, sale,  importation,  and  exportation  of  oleomargarine;'  and 

"Whereas  such  a  bill,  if  enacted,  is  calculated  to  build  up  and 
restore  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  another  by  means  of  uncalled- 
for  and  unjust  taxation;  and 

"Whereas  the  destruction  of  the  oleomargarine  industry  would 
greatly  impair  the  market  value  of  beef  cattle,  and  would  thereby 
deprive  the  producer  of  a  large  amount  of  revenue:  Therefore,  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  the  Sioux  City  Live  Stock  Exchange  of  Sioux  City, 
Iowa,  emphatically  protests  against  the  enactment  of  the  law  proposed 
in  House  bill  No.  6. 

"Witness  the  signatures  of  the  president  and  secretary  of  said 
exchange  and  the  official  seal  thereof  affixed  at  Sioux  City,  Iowa, 
December  28,  1899. 

"  J.  H.  NASON,  President. 
"  WM.  MAGIVNY,  Secretary." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  have  other  resolutions,  will  it  not  answer 
your  purpose  to  have  them  inserted  in  the  record  and  printed  without 
reading  them  ?  * 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  will  be  satisfactory.  These  are  resolutions  passed 
by  the  superintendents  of  the  oil  mills  of  North  and  South  Carolina: 

SUPERINTENDENTS   OF   OIL   MILLS   IN   NORTH  AND   SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

Resolutions  against  oleomargarine  tax  offered  at  meeting  of  cotton- 
oil  mill  superintendents. 

"CHARLESTON,  S.  C.,  July  6. 

"  Cotton  oil  superintendents  from  South  Carolina  and  North  Carolina 
met  yesterday  at  the  Calhoun  Hotel  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  the 
cotton-oil  mill  superintendents'  association. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  61 

"After  the  constitution  and  by-laws  were  read  and  adopted,  the  fol- 
lowing resolutions  were  offered  by  A.  A.  Haynes: 

"  ^Re'solved,  That  this  association,  representing  millions  of  dollars 
of  invested  capital  in  the  South,  strongly  protest  against  national  class 
legislation  which  aims  directly  at  the  destruction  of  competition  in 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  wholesome  and  healthful  articles  of  food. 

"  ''Resolved,  That  we  protest  strenuously  against  the  passage  by  Con- 
gress of  the  Grout  oleomargarine  bill,  which  proposes  to  tax  oleomar- 
garine 10  cents  per  pound,  and  thus  to  drive  it  from  the  market. 

"'JResolved,  That  this  association  implores  Congress  not  to  destroy 
an  industry  which  now  uses  nearly  10,000,000  pounds  of  the  best  grade 
of  cotton-seed  oil  annually,  and  thus  kill  that  quantity  of  our  most 
profitable  output. 

" k Resolved,  That  we  urge  the  legislatures  of  South  Carolina  and  of 
other  Southern  States  to  remove  from  their  statute  books  the  anti- 
oleomargarine  legislation  thereon,  because  such  acts  are  only  in  the 
interest  of  the  renovated  and  process  butter  factories  of  the  North  and 
Northwest,  and  against  the  hog  fats,  beef  fats,  and  cotton-seed-oil 
products  grown  on  our  Southern  farms. 

" ' 'Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  to  the  National 
Provisioner,  of  New  York  and  Chicago,  the  indomitable  champion  of 
the  cotton-oil  interests,  for  publication,  and  that  the  members  of  this 
association  proceed  to  secure,  if  possible,  the  repeal  of  the  obnoxious 
State  laws  above  referred  to. 

"  ^Resolved,  That  this  association  will  do  what  it  can  to  cause  the 
defeat  of  the  Grout  antioleomargarine  bill  in  Congress  during  the 
coming  session."1 

This  is  a  resolution  passed  by  the  Mercantile  Club  of  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Senator  BATE.  They  are  all  to  the  same  purport? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

KANSAS  CITY,  KANS.,  MERCANTILE  CLUB. 

THE  MERCANTILE  CLUB, 
Kansas  City,  Kans. ,  March  H,  1900. 

At  a  recent  meeting  of  the  Mercantile  Club  the  following  resolution 
was  adopted: 

"  Whereas  bills  have  been  introduced  in  the  Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives  as  follows:  H.  R.  No.  6,  by  Mr.  Tawney,  of  Minne- 
sota; H.  R.  No.  43,  by  Mr.  Davidson,  of  Wisconsin;  H.  R.  No.  3717, 
by  Mr.  Grout,  of  Vermont;  H.  R.  No.  6445,  by  Mr.  Glynn,  of  New 
York;  H.  R.  No.  2049,  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  Nebraska,  increasing  the 
present  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound  on  butterine  to  10  cents  per  pound;  and 

"Whereas  such  legislation,  if  enacted,  is  calculated  to  build  up  one 
industry  at  the  expense  of  tearing  down  and  ruining  another,  and  will 
in  effect  amount  to  the  giving  of  a  monopoly  to  the  industry  sought  to 
be  benefited  by  such  legislation  at  the  expense  of  another  by  means 
of  uncalled-for  taxation;  and 

"Whereas  the  destruction  of  the  oleomargarine  or  butterine  indus- 
try would  greatly  impair  the  market  value  of  beef  cattle,  doing  great 
injustice  to  cattlemen  of  Kansas,  and  would  be  a  severe  blow  to  the 
manufacturing  interests  of  Kansas  City,  United  States  of  America: 
Therefore,  be  it 


62  OLEOMARGABINE. 

"  Resolved^  That  the  Mercantile  Club  of  Kansas  City,  Kans.,  protest 
against  the  enactment  of  the  law  proposed  in  said  bills,  to  the  end  that 
just  competition  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  food  products  be 
maintained." 

We  ask  your  careful  consideration  of  the  same,  believing,  as  we  do, 
that  the  subject  is  one  of  great  importance.  The  sale  of  butterine  is 
already  regulated  by  the  act  of  1886,  and  an  increase  in  the  tax  would 
simply  kill  a  great  industry,  in  which  millions  of  dollars  are  invested 
and  many  thousands  of  men  employed.  Therefore,  we  feel  confident 
that  on  examination  you  will  find  many  more  people  benefited  by  the 
furnishing  to  them  of  a  wholesome  and  attractive  substitute  for  butter 
than  could  possibly  be  benefited  by  the  giving  of  a  monopoly  to  the 
dairy  interests. 

Yours,  very  truly,  W.  E.  GRIFFITH,  Secretary. 

Here  are  resolutions  passed  by  the  Commercial  Club  of  Kansas  City: 

KANSAS   CITY,  MO.,  COMMERCIAL   CLUB. 

' '  To  the  honorable  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 

United  States: 

"The  Commercial  Club  of  Kansas  City  respectfully  represents  that 
it  is  an  organization  composed  of  over  TOO  business  men  of  Kansas 
City,  Mo. ;  that  the  business  interests  represented  by  its  members 
comprehend  the  principal  jobbing  and  manufacturing  plants  of  Kansas 
City.  The  population  of  Kansas  City  and  its  adjacent  territory,  com- 
prising one  commercial  city,  is  nearly  or  quite  300,000,  and  within  a 
radius  of  100  miles  there  is  a  population  of  3,000,000.  Kansas  City  occu- 
pies the  tenth  place  in  the  amount  of  bank  clearings  in  this  country. 
We  have  nine  States  and  Territories  that  regard  Kansas  City  as  their 
banking  center.  The  commercial  organization  is  constantly  watchful  in 
advancing  the  commercial  interests  of  Kansas  City,  and  seeks  to  protect 
these  interests  when  threatened  by  adverse  legislation.  As  an  associa- 
tion it  desires  to  enter  its  emphatic  protest  against  the  enactment  of 
H.  R.  bill  No.  6,  which  was  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
December  4,  1899,  by  Mr.  Tawney,  of  Minnesota,  providing  for  an 
enactment  of  4An  act  defining  butter,  also  imposing  a  tax  upon  and  reg- 
ulating the  manufacture,  sale,  importation,  and  exportation  of  oleo- 
margarine;' that  this  measure,  if  passed,  will  build  up  one  industry  at 
the  expense  of  tearing  down  and  ruining  another  industry,  and  will  in 
effect  amount  to  the  giving  of  a  monopoly  to  the  industry  sought  to 
be  benefited  by  such  legislation;  that  the  bill  above  referred  to,  if 
it  becomes  a  law,  will  reduce  the  value  to  the  farmers  and  raisers  of 
cattle  an  average  of  $2  per  head  and  a  corresponding  decrease  in  the 
value  of  hogs. 

"The  use  of  the  fat  of  beef,  as  well  as  the  use  of  thousands  of  gallons 
of  milk  daily,  and  the  other  fats  used  in  making  oleomargarine,  not 
only  increases  the  value  of  every  beef  animal,  but  every  milch  cow 
and  every  hog,  arid  acts  as  an  encouragement  to  the  owner  and  raiser 
of  cattle  and  hogs  to  improve  his  herd  and  raise  the  grade  of  his  live 
stock  so  that  they  will  carry  more  of  this  animal  fat  and  will  in  the  end 
raise  the  standard  and  the  grade  of  cattle  and  hogs  throughout  the 
entire  United  States.  The  farmers  and  cattle  raisers  of  the  United 
States  are  directly  interested  in  such  legislation  as  depreciates  the  value 


OLEOMARGARINE.  63 

of  every  animal  that  they  now  own  and  every  animal  that  should  be 
raised  hereafter. 

"  It  is  but  just  that  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  producers  of  cat- 
tle and  hogs  should  be  duly  considered  and  respected  as  well  as  should 
the  desire  of  a  certain  class  whose  only  object  and  purpose  in  legisla- 
tion of  this  kind  is  to  decrease  the  supply  of  butter  substitutes,  thereby 
increasing  the  demand  for  butter  and  the  price  thereof. 

"  Oleomargarine,  as  now  manufactured,  is  just  as  wholesome  as  but- 
ter, and  many  chemists  have  declared  it  to  be  even  more  so.  It  is  sur- 
rounded by  the  numerous/ safeguards  which  Congress  has  seen  fit  to 
provide,  and  it  is  a  cheap]  pure,  and  wholesome  substitute  for  butter. 
Its  cheapness  in  price  allows  it  to  become  a  substitute  for  expensive 
butter,  and  it  is  used  by  millions  of  poor  people  in  the  United  States 
who  are  unable  to  pay  the  price  demanded  for  creamery  product. 

"  Oleomargarine  has  by  experience  proven  to  be  just  what  a  great 
majority  of  the  people  in  this  country  want,  and  in  the  name  of  the  pro- 
ducers of  cattle  and  of  hogs  we  do  solemnly  protest  against  the  enact- 
ment of  legislation  calculated  to  cheapen  the  price  of  cattle  and  hogs, 
ruin  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  and  deprive  countless  thousands 
of  poor  people  from  the  use  of  a  cheap  but  wholesome,  nutritious,  and 
acceptable  article  of  food. 

"E.  M.  CLENDENING,  Secretary. 

"  MARCH  8,  1900." 

Are  there  any  further  questions  that  any  Senator  would  like  to 
ask  me  ? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  You  spoke  a  moment  ago  of  a  resolution  in  favor  of 
the  dairy  interests  emanating  from  the  same  source. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Is  that  true  of  these  resolutions  which  you  are  offering  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir;  they  were  spontaneous. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Nonpolitical  ? 

Senator  BATE.  How  is  that?     I  did  not  get  your  question. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  asked  whether  the  same  rule  applied  to  these  resolu- 
tions that  Mr.  Miller  had  said  applied  to  the  resolutions  emanating  in 
favor  of  dairy  interests,  all  from  one  source.  He  said  no,  that  they 
are  from  different  sources  and  are  voluntary. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Congressman  Tawney,  in  a  speech  in  the 
House,  said  very  positively  that  the  most  strenuous  efforts  were  made 
in  his  district  to  defeat  him  on  account  of  the  fact  that  he  was  a  friend 
of  the  Grout  bill. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  will  say  that  I  am  thoroughly  familiar  with  all  that 
has  gone  on  among  butterine  manufacturers,  and  there  never  was  an 
effort  of  any  description  exerted  in  Mr.  Tawney's  district  to  defeat 
him. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  veracity  between 
Mr.  Tawney  and  yourself. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  do  not  think  we  have  a  friend  located  in  Mr.  Tawney's 
district.  There  never  was  a  letter  written  that  I  know  of,  or  any 
influence  brought  to  bear  upon  a  man  in  opposing  him. 

Senator  BATE.  There  was  in  other  districts,  I  suppose? 

Mr.  MILLER.  None  whatever.  We  have  no  political  organization  to 
try  to  elect  members  to  Congress  who  are  in  favor  of  our  interests — 
none  whatever. 


64  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  HANSBKOUGH.  What  would  have  happened  to  Mr.  Cowherd 
in  Kansas  City  had  he  proclaimed  himself  in  favor  of  the  Grout  bill? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  do  not  know  what  would  have  happened.  I  know  if 
the  packers  had  not  come  to  his  rescue  he  would  have  been  hopelessly 
snowed  under.  He  was  the  only  Democrat  elected  in  the  county.  We 
were  taking  no  part  in  electing  any  candidate  on  either  side,  but  as  Mr. 
Cowherd  had  expressed  himself  as  favoring  our  interests  we  felt  it  our 
duty  to  come  to  his  rescue. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  voted,  I  hope,  for  some  one,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  I  did;  but  we  made  no  attempt  whatever  in 
the  last  year  to  elect  any  one  to  Congress  who  favored  our  interest. 

Senator  BATE.  Then  you  voted  for  your  interest,  not  on  principle, 
in  that  case? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  in  that  particular  case  we  did. 

STATEMENT  OF  JOHN  C.  M'COY. 

Mr.  McCoy.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee — 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Do  you  represent  a  manufacturing  industry- 
or  do  you  appear  as  attorney  for  a  manufacturing  industry  ? 

Mr.  McCoY.  No,  sir;  I  am  not  an  attorney.  I  am  simply  an  indi- 
vidual— a  private  citizen — and  I  am  here,  as  I  will  state  to  you  directly, 
in  two  capacities.  I  will  say  that  I  have  been  handicapped  all  my  life 
by  the  misfortune  of  not  being  able  to  express  my  feelings  in  public 
the  way  I  should  like  to  do.  I  am  not  a  public  speaker,  and  I  therefore 
ask  the  privilege  of  reading  what  I  have  prepared  on  this-  subject. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  will  say  also  that  I  have  been  very  badly  handi- 
capped since  I  left  Kansas  City  a  few  days  ago,  as  I  have  been  quite 
sick  ever  since,  and  I  have  had  very  little  time  to  make  any  prepara- 
tion whatever. 

I  wish  to  say,  gentlemen,  that  I  appreciate  the  honor  of  being  per- 
mitted to  appear  before  your  committee,  and  regret  my  inexperience 
and  lack  of  ability  will  prevent  me  from  presenting  my  views  on  this 
important  subject  as  I  feel  them.  I  am  here  before  you  in  a  dual 
capacity — as  an  individual,  a  Western  farmer,  stock  raiser,  a  commis- 
sion merchant  for  the  sale  of  cattle,  hogs,  and  sheep,  and  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange,  the  members  of 
which  handled  during  this  year  of  1900  over  6,000,000  head  of  live 
stock,  valued  at  over  $125, 000,000.  I  feel  that  the  importance  of  the 
industry  with  which  I  am  connected  and  the  most  important  bearing 
the  bill  under  discussion  will  have  on  it  should  be  sufficient  apology 
for  my  trespassing  upon  your  time. 

I  am  at  a  loss,  however,  gentlemen,  to  know  what  to  say  to  you. 
Since  the  first  introduction  of  the  Grout  bill  in  the  House  up  to  the 
present  time  the  matter  has  been  so  thoroughly  discussed  in  the  public 
press,  before  committees,  by  a  flood  of  literature  of  all  kinds,  that  it 
does  not  seem  possible  that  a  new  argument  could  be  presented,  though 
I  know  there  are  many,  like  myself,  desirous  of  doing  all  possible 
to  prevent  what  seems  to  us  so  unjust  a  measure. 

Because  I  have  taken  such  a  deep  interest  in  the  matter  the  field 
seems  to  have  been  thoroughly  covered.  A  large  number  of  the  most 
celebrated  chemists  of  this  country,  including  Prof.  H.  W.  Wiley, 
Chief  Chemist  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  have 


OLEOMARGARINE.  65 

testified  that  the  ingredients  of  oleomargarine  are  healthful  and  nutri- 
tious and  that  the  product  contains  nothing  deleterious  to  health. 
The  same  gentlemen  have  also  testified  that  the  coloring  matter  used 
in  its  manufacture  is  the  same  that  is  used  by  the  makers  of  butter  all 
over  this  countiy,  and  it  is  used  by  both  for  the  same  purpose.  The 
manufacturers  of  the  article  have  testified  under  oath  time  and  again 
as  to  what  ingredients  go  to  make  up  the  product  until  it  has  become 
known  to  almost  every  intelligent  man  in  this  country.  Its  purity 
and  cleanliness  are,  I  believe,  unquestioned,  even  by  its  opponents,  the 
creamery  butter  manufacturers,  and  a  committee  of  your  own  body, 
the  United  States  Senate  Committee  on  Manufactures,  of  which  the 
Hon.  W.  E.  Mason  was  chairman,  after  a  most  thorough  investigation 
of  the  subject,  reported  "that  the  product  known  as  oleomargarine  is 
healthful  and  nutritious,  and  no  further  legislation  is  necessary,"  and 
the  great  mass  of  testimony  taken  by  that  committee  is  available  to 
this  committee. 

All  of  this  being  well  known  to  your  honorable  body,  or  at  least  mat- 
ters of  public  record,  what  can  I  add  to  the  argument  why  this  bill  should 
not  become  a  law  ?  Possibly  nothing  but  to  add  my  vigorous  protest  in 
the  name  of  the  stock  raisers  of  the  great  West  against  the  passage  of 
such  selfish,  unjust,  and  ultra  class  legislation. 

I  admit  that  we  of  the  West  are  hardly  up  with  the  times  and  are  slow 
to  take  hold  of  and  adopt  all  the  new-fangled  notions  that  are  so  rapidly 
brought  forth  in  this  age  of  progress,  but  having  been  taught  from 
our  infancy  to  love  our  country  and  honor  the  Constitution,  God  for- 
bid that  we  should  ever  cast  aside  the  clause  that  kt  gives  equal  rights 
to  all  and  special  privileges  to  none"  and  take  up  with  the  spirit  of 
class  legislation  such  as  is  attempted  and  exemplified  in  this  bill. 

1  do  not  think  there  is  any  sane  man  who  has  given  this  bill  any 
serious  consideration  whatever  but  believes  that  this  bill  is  aimed 
at  the  life  of  the  oleomargarine  industry,  to  legislate  it  out  of  existence, 
so  as  to  give  the  butter  makers  (and  by  the  butter  makers  I  do  not 
mean  to  say  the  great  mass  of  farmers  and  farmers'  wives  who  make 
butter,  for  they  cut  little  figure  in  this  matter)  exclusive  right  to 
produce  an  article  of  diet  to  be  spread  upon  bread  to  make  it  more 
palatable,  to  gain  a  monopoly  on  one  of  the  most  valued  necessities  of 
life.  It  has  been  asserted  by  those  that  have  investigated  the  subject 
that  in  the  average  household  butter  comes  second  in  the  expense  list 
for  provisions. 

It  is  larger  than  the  outlay  for  bread  or  coffee  or  sugar,  and  is  exceeded 
only  by  the  meat  bills.  One  of  the  most  serious  problems  before  the 
American  people  to-day  is  the  one  of  trusts  and  monopolies. 

However  much  political  economists  and  intelligent  men  may  differ 
on  that  great  subject,  most  serious  consideration  should  be  given  before 
a  way  is  prepared  whereby  such  an  important  article,  one  that  comes 
into  the  daily  life  of  the  rich  and  poor  alike,  whether  it  be  upon  the 
dainty  rolls  of  the  millionaire  or  the  coarse  but  wholesome  corn  bread 
of  the  laborer,  can  be  made  the  subject  of  absolute  control  in  the  hands 
of  mercenary  men. 

Legislate  out  of  existence  practically  their  only  competitor,  oleo- 
margarine, and  would  not  the  creamery  interests  be  able  to  control 
the  supply  of  butter  in  this  country  as  it  is  now  claimed  they  are  able 
to  control  the  price  of  creamery  butter  ? 

A  more  thorough  organization  nor  a  more  extensive  one  does  not 

S.  Rep.  2043 5 


66  OLEOMARGARINE. 

exist  to-day  than  that  of  the  creamery  associations,  as  we  have  dis- 
covered by  their  work  in  favor  of  this  bill  out  West. 

The  gentleman  who  just  preceded  me  has  told  you  of  the  methods 
that  have  been  used  by  the  creamery  interests  in  furthering  their  own 
interests  by  mixing  into  politics.  1  know  it  to  be  a  fact  that  almost 
every  little  creamery  on  the  prairies  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  has  been 
flooded  for  a  year  with  all  sorts  of  literature  and  postal  cards  urging 
them  to  write  to  their  Congressmen  and  Senators  to  support  this  Grout 
bill,  and  if  the  members  of  this  committee  are  flooded  with  requests 
of  that  character  from  their  constituents  they  may  know  exactly  where 
they  have  emanated. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Where  have  they  emanated? 

Mr.  McCoy.  From  the  National  Dairy  Association  headquarters  at 
Chicago. 

Conscious  of  their  power  and  organization  I  think  the  gentlemen 
deserve  credit  for  not  framing  their  bill  as  follows: 

"Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  Howe  of  Representative*  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  all  articles 
known  as  oleomargarine,  gravy,  goose  grease,  or  ai^  substance  to  be 


spread  upon  bread  to  make  it  palatable,  as  good  as  butter  or  cheese,  not 
the  usual  product  of  the  dairy  and  not  made  exclusivel}7  of  pure  and 
unadulterated  milk  and  cream  shall  be  absolutely  prohibited,"  etc. 

Although  this  bill  is  aimed  at  the  life  of  the  oleomargarine  industry, 
we  believe  that  it  will  if  enacted  into  a  law^  seriously  cripple  one,  with 
which  by  comparison  both  oleomargarine  and  its  opponent  butter  pale 
into  insignificance,  that  of  the  live-stock  industry.  Neither  myself  or 
the  people  I  represent  are  directly  interested  in  the  manufacture  of 
oleomagarine  or  of  butter,  and  interested  only  so  far  as  our  interests 
are  affected  and  our  inherent  love  of  personal  liberty  and  freedom,  but 
we  ask  you  gentlemen  not  to  allow  one  great  industry  to  be  ground 
between  the  warring  factions  of  these  two  opposing  industries.  It  has 
become  a  matter  of  general  information,  and  is  also  in  evidence  before 
this  committee,  that  the  two  principal  ingredients  of  oleomargarine  are 
the  caul  fat  of  the  beef  steer  and  the  leaf  fat  from  the  hog. 

Senator  BATE.  What  do  you  mean  by  caul  fat? 

Senator  WARREN.   It  is  kidney  fat,  the  best  quality. 

Mr.  McCoY.  It  is  kidney  fat,  and,  as  Mr.  Miller,  who  just  preceded 
me,  explained,  it  is  purer  fat,  a  higher  grade  of  fat. 

Senator  BATE.  That  is  what  he  said,  but  he  did  not  give  it  the  name 
of  caul  fat. 

Mr.  McCoY.  The  average  beef  steer  contains  about  50  pounds  of 
caul  fat,  and  the  average  hog  about  8  pounds  of  leaf  fat.  The  market 
price  to-day  for  caul  fat  for  oleomargarine  purposes  is  about  10  cents 
per  pound,  while  tallow  is  worth  about  6  cents;  and  the  leaf  fat  for 
oleomargarine  purposes  8i  cents  per  pound,  and  for  lard  only  6  cents. 
Those  are  very  close  approximate  values. 

There  has  been  slaughtered  in  Kansas  City  since  January  1,  1900,  to 
date  over  1,000,000  cattle,  producing,  approximately,  50,000,000  pounds 
of  oleo  oil,  worth  to-day  for  oleomargarine  purposes  10  cents  per 
pound,  or  $5,000,000.  Were  it  not  for  the  demand  the  manufacture 
of  oleomargarine  has  created  for  oleo  oil,  this  product  would  have  been 
sold  for  tallow  at  6  cents  per  pound,  netting  $3,000,000,  a  difference 
of  $2,000,000,  or  $2  per  head  for  each  animal  slaughtered. 

During  the  period  just  mentioned  there  were  slaughtered  at  Kansas 


OLEOMARGARINE.  67 

City  approximately  3,000,000  hogs,  producing  about  24,000,000  pounds 
of  leaf  fat,  worth  for  oleomargarine  purposes,  at  8£  cents  per  pound, 
$2,040,000.  The  demand  for  this  product  as  an  oleomargarine  ingre- 
dient removed,  it  would  have  been  sold  for  lard  at  6  cents  per  pound, 
or  $1,440,000,  a  difference  of  $600,000,  or  20  cents  per  head  for  each 
hog  slaughtered. 

Had  it  not  been  possible  to  use  these  two  products  for  oleomarga- 
rine purposes  instead  of  tallow  and  lard,  it  would  have  cost  the  farm- 
ers marketing  their  stock  at  Kansas  City  this  year  $2,600,000.  The 
same  is  true  at  all  the  principal  live-stock  markets  in  proportion  to 
their  receipts.  The  rive  large  Western  markets — Chicago,  Kansas 
City,  St.  Louis,  Omaha,  and  St.  Joseph — have  handled  since  January 
1, 1900,  to  date,  6,500,000  cattle  and  16,300,000  hogs.  Of  that  number 
at  least  75  per  cent  of  the  cattle,  or  4,875,000,  were  slaughtered,  and 
practically  all  of  the  hogs.  A  difference  of  $2  per  head  on  the  cattle 
and  20  cents  per  head  on  the  hogs  would  mean  a  loss  to  the  Western 
farmers  on  their  marketing  of  cattle  and  hogs  for  the  year  1900  of 
$13,000,000.  But,  gentlemen,  carry  the  reasoning  still  further.  The 
Government  report  shows  that  on  January  1,  1900,  there  were  in  the 
United  States  27,610,000  cattle  other  than  milch  cows,  or  cattle  avail- 
able sooner  or  later  for  beef.  A  depreciation  of  $2  per  head  on  them 
would  mean  $55,220,000.  The  same  authority  gives  the  number  of 
hogs  in  the  United  States  on  January  1, 1899,  approximately,  38,650,000. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  it  reduce  the  value  of  the  milch  cow  to  have 
the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  stopped?  I  thought  you  included 
all  the  cattle. 

Mr.  McCoY.  No,  sir;  I  included  only  the  cattle  other  than  milch  cows. 
The  Government  makes  a  distinction.  It  would  reduce  the  value  of 
the  milch  cow,  because  the  ultimate  destination  of  all  cattle  is  the  block. 
Milch  cows  are  used  for  a  long  time  for  milk  purposes,  but  unless  they 
should  happen  to  die  of  old  age,  which  the  farmer  generally  sees  is  not 
the  case,  the  ultimate  destination  of  the  milch  cow  is  the  block. 

Senator  WARREN.  You  have  entered  into  a  calculation  as  to  the 
price  of  cattle  other  than  cows.  W  e  assume,  without  your  stating  it, 
that  when  a  cow  comes  to  the  block  she  brings  relatively  that  much 
more,  whether  $2  or  $1.  Now,  on  the  other  side  of  the  question,  1 
want  to  get  your  opinion  as  to  what  the  effect  is  liable  to  be  upon  the 
price  of  cows  if  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  is  continued  or  if 
it  is  discontinued.  Would  the  discontinuance  of  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine  raise  the  price  of  cows;  and  if  so,  how  much?  Would 
the  continuance  of  the  present  amount  manufactured,  or  double  the 
amount,  we  will  say,  reduce  the  price  of  cows,  and  how  much,  in  your 
opinion  2 

Mr.  McCor.  In  my  opinion  it  would  reduce  the  value  of  the  milch 
cow  at  the  same  time  that  it  reduced  the  value  of  the  beef  steer. 

Senator  WARREN.  No;  you  misunderstand  me.  I  want  to  know 
whether  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  reduces  the  price  of  the  cow. 

Mr.  McCoY.  No,  sir. 

Senator  WARREN.  In  other  words,  do  you  consider  that  through  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  you  are  reducing  the  price  of  butter  on 
the  market  to  a  point  that  will  reduce  the  price  of  the  cows  that  pro- 
duce the  butter? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  think  I  can  answer  that  question,  if  the  Senator  will 
allow  me,  by  a  statement  on  that  line  that  1  made  before  the  House 
committee. 


68  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  WARREN.  In  the  concrete,  I  want  to  know  if  the  .sale  of  oleo- 
margarine is  lowering  the  price  of  butter,  or  displacing  the,  sale  of 
butter, "or  reducing  the  price  of  cows. 

Mr.  McCoy.  You  mean  the  price  of  cows  instead  of  the  price  of 
butter? 

Senator  WARREN.  Yes;  a  reduction  in  the  price  of  butter  through 
the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  would,  of  course,  reduce  the  price 
of  cows  naturally. 

Mr.  McCoY.  1  think  this  will  answer  the  question: 

The  Orange  Judd  Farmer,  published  in  the  State  Of  New  York,  an 
agricultural  journal  of  exceptionally  high  standing,  and  one  that  has 
enjoyed  the  confidence  of  the  agricultural  community  for  a  decade,  in 
a  recent  issue  says: 

"Cows  are  worth  50  per  cent  more  now  than  during  the  ten  years 
preceding  1897,  and  are  fully  as  high  as  during  the  boom  of  1884—85." 

Is  that  along  the  point? 

Senator  WARREN.  That  is  along  the  point,  but  it  does  not  touch  it 
exactly  yet. 

Mr.  McCoY.  The  article  proceeds: 

"Last  summer  cheese  got  back  to  old-time  prices.  Butter  has  of 
late  sold  much  above  the  quotations  of  four  or  five  years  ago.  Even 
milk  sold  in  market  is  stiffening  in  prices  and  may  go  up  to  those  of 
the  early  eighties,  and  will  go  there  with  organized  persistency  by 
producers  and  reasonable  cooperation  from  the  trade." 

Senator  WARREN.  That,  I  understand,  is  with  reference  to  the  con- 
dition of  the  business,  but  not  with  reference  to  the  effect  of  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine.  That  is  from  some  report? 

Mr.  McCoY.  No.  "But  during  the  period  when  we  had  a  boom  and 
increased  the  value  of  milk  and  butter  and  cows"- 

Senator  WARREN.  What  are  you  reading  from,  please? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  am  reading  an  extract  from  the  Orange  Judd  Farmer, 
and  that  same  paragraph  or  article  is  in  the  report  of  the  House  com- 
mittee. 

Senator  WARREN.  What  is  the  pamphlet  from  which  you  are  reading  ? 

Mr.  McCoY.  It  is  a  statement  of  evidence  before  the  House  com- 
mittee. 

A  reduction  of  20  cents  per  head  on  the  hogs  of  the  United  States 
would  mean  a  loss  of  $7,730,000.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  if  this  bill 
becomes  a  law  the  stock  raisers  of  this  country  will  suffer  a  deprecia- 
tion in  the  value  of  their  property  of  $62,760,000.  By  what  course  of 
reasoning  can  the  creamery  interests  ask  us  to  suffer  a  depreciation  of 
almost  $63,000,000  in  our  property  that  they  may  gain  an  advantage 
over  a  fair  and  honorable  competitor?  Why  should  my  State,  the 
State  of  Missouri,  suffer  a  depreciation  of  $2,775,230  on  its  beef  cattle 
when  it  has  only  659,731  milch  cows  all  told?  And  so,  gentlemen,  each 
member  on  this  committee,  I  care  not  from  what  State  he  comes,  can 
take  the  number  of  cattle  in  his  State  and  in  two  minutes  figure  what 
the  loss  to  his  cattle-growing  constituents  would  be. 

I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  in  all  candor  and  fairness,  is  it  right  that  this 
Government  should  come  in  by  its  lawmaking  power  and  legislate  in 
favor  of  one  section  as  against  the  other  ?  For  the  cattle-growing  States 
and  the  dairy  States  are  almost  as  clearly  defined  as  if  the  one  was  red 
and  the  other  blue  on  the  map.  Or  should  they  legislate  in  favor  of 
one  agricultural  industry  as  against  the  other  ?  For  every  ingredient 


OLEOMARGARINE.  69 

that  enters  into  the  manufacture  of  oleomaragarine  is  as  much  a  prod- 
uct of  the  American  farm  as  is  the  milk  from  which  cow  butter  is 
made.  If  a  precedent  is  set  by  the  enactment  of  this  bill  into  a  law, 
will  not  our  friends  from  the  South  introduce  a  bill  at  the  coming  ses- 
sion of  Congress  as  followsi? 

".Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  etc.,  That 
all  sugar  known  as  beet  sugar,  or  any  substance  in  the  semblance  of 
sugar  not  the  usual  product  of  the  old,  time-honored  sugar  cane,  be 
taxed  2  cents  per  pound  unclarifiedand  10  cents  per  pound  when  clarified 
a  beautiful  white  in  imitation  of  genuine  cane  sugar,  as  it  is  now 
clarified  to  meet  the  tastes  of  the  consumer. " 

Or  will  not  the  rubber  manufacturers  ask  that  the  manufacturers  of 
celluloid  goods  be  prohibited  from  making  any  article  in  imitation  of 
rubber?  And  so,  gentlemen,  where  will  such  legislation  end?  These 
gentlemen  ask  you  to  prohibit  us  from  using  three  or  four  of  the 
pure,  healthful,  and  nutritious  products  of  our  farms  and  ranges,  blend- 
ing them  into  a  palatable  article  of  diet  to  be  used,  when  a  man  wants 
to  do  so,  in  the  place  of  cow  butter.  And  yet  the  same  gentlemen,  or 
rather  the  principal  dairy  States,  will  take  the  cotton  and  wool  that 
we  raise  and,  by  dipping  in  certain  solutions,  so  change  its  texture  that 
it  can  be  woven  into  most  beautiful  fabrics  that  they  send  to  us  unso- 
phisticated people  out  West  to  be  used  in  the  place  of  silk.  The  gen- 
tlemen object  very  strenuously  to  the  use  of  the  "word  "butterine"  as 
tending  to  deceive,  and  yet  they  call  this  beautiful  slick  and  shiny 
goods  '"silkaline." 

The  advocates  of  this  bill  object  to  taking  the  same  ingredients  that 
enter  into  the  composition  of  cow  butter  (though  in  a  different  form) 
and  compounding  them  into  an  article  of  food  in  every  way  as  good, 
but  the  same  gentlemen  will  take  a  small  portion  of  the  wool  from  our 
Western  sheep,  mix  it  with  a  very  large  proportion  of  Southern  cot- 
ton, and  send  it  back  to  us  gullible  Westerners  as  being  all  wool  and  a 
yard  wide. 

Much  has  been  said  on  both  sides  of  this  question  in  regard  to  the 
color  in  oleomargarine  and  in  cow  butter;  and  I  believe  it  has  been 
conceded  that  both  interests  use  the  same  material  for  that  purpose, 
and  both  use  it  to  accomplish  the  same  ends — that  of  giving  to  the 
consumer  something  that  he  wants,  something  that  the  Constitution 
gives  him  as  a  free-born  American  citizen  the  right  to  use,  so  long  as  it 
does  not  injure  him  nor  trample  upon  the  rights  of  others,  and  some- 
thing that  will  make  his  bread  go  down  with  that  pleasing  sense  of 
satisfied  taste  so  essential  to  good  digestion  and  preservation  of  health 
and  life.  To  assert  that  food  taken  to  nourish  does  not  have  to  be 
pleasing  to  the  eye  as  well  as  to  the  taste  seems  ridiculous  and  reflect- 
ing upon  the  common  sense  and  intelligence  of  this  committee.  If  it 
were  not  so  I  will  ask  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  why  they  do 
do  not  use  the  good  old-fashioned  brown  sugar,  usually  a  good,  rich, 
dark  brown — the  color  of  mahogany — that  possesses  strength  and 
flavor  far  be}^ond  the  clarified  pure  white  sugars  of  the  present  day. 
I  will  guarantee  our  friends  here,  the  advocates  of  this  bill,  have  used 
none  other  than  the  pure  white  sugar  for  years.  You  all  know  why 
they  use  it,  and  so  do  they.  They  prefer  it  of  that  color  as  being  more 
pleasing  to  their  taste  and  better  satisfying  their  pride.  People  want 
oleomargarine  and  butter  colored  yellow  for  the  same  reason. 


70  OLEOMARGARINE. 

There  is  one  subject  on  which  I  may  be  able  to  give  the  committee 
some  information,  and  that  pertains  to  the  purity  and  healthfulness  of 
the  two  principal  ingredients  of  oleomargarine — that  of  the  cone  fat 
and  the  leaf  fat.  Under  the  most  excellent  system  of  governmental 
inspection  inaugurated  a  few  years  ago  by  the  Bureau  of  Animal 
Industry,  the  liability  of  diseased  cattle  and  hogs  being  used  for  food 
has  been  reduced  to  a  minimum.  On  our  market,  and  the  same  is  true 
at  all  other  large  abattoirs  (except  in  Chicago  a  little  different  but  I 
believe  a  more  stringent  method  is  used),  Government  inspectors  who 
are  under  a  chief,  who  has  to  be  a  graduate  of  a  veterinary  college  and 
stand  an  examination,  go  through  the  stock  yards  and  take  from  the 
cattle  received  all  such  as  show  signs  of  any  disease  or  as  in  any 
manner  unfit  for  human  food.  As  cattle  are  sold  and  go  to  the  scales 
two  of  these  inspectors  examine  them  as  they  pass  between  them  and 
cut  out  and  condemn  all  that  in  their  judgment  should  be.  After  the 
cattle  go  to  the  slaughtering  establishment  they  are  again  given  an 
ante-mortem  inspection.  After  they  are  killed  they  are  again  given 
a  post-mortem  inspection,  and  if  found  healthy  and  free  from  any 
disease  that  would  be  injurious  or  a  menace  to  the  public  health,  a  cer- 
tificate of  inspection  is  placed  on  each  carcass.  The  same  is  true  of 
hogs,  except  the  certificate  is  not  placed  on  the  carcass. 

So  I  am  here  to-day,  gentlemen,  to  assert  with  all  the  force  that  I 
am  able  to  command  that  when  either  our  cow-butter  friends  or  the 
agrarian  party  in  Germany,  both  of  whom  seem  inclined  to  strike  a 
blow  at  the  cattle  products  of  this  country,  claim  an  inferiority  or 
unhealthfulness  of  those  two  principal  ingredients  of  oleomargarine 
or  the  meat  products  of  this  country,  they  perpetrate  a  base  slander 
and  not  warranted  by  the  facts.  Your  own  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture in  its  Yearbook  published  January  1,  1899,  said  the  health  of 
animals  and  of  men  is  very  largely  dependent  upon  the  use  of  sanitary 
precautions  and  the  enforcement  of  sanitary  regulations.  As  a  certain 
disease  (therein  named)  in  animals  is  reduced,  so  will  that  disease  in 
man  be  proportionately  decreased.  Along  that  line  we  are  ready  to 
meet  our  butter  and  creamery  friends  at  any  time.  I  understand  that 
the  present  tax  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  oleomargarine  brings  in  a 
revenue  to  the  Government  of  about  $2,000,000  per  annum.  Oleomar- 
garine destroyed,  the  factories  closed,  it  having  become  so  generally 
known  that  the  cool  fat  from  every  steer  and  the  leaf  fat  from  every 
hog  can  be  so  used  by  any  ordinaiy  intelligent  man,  would  not  our 
creamery  operators,  if  not  a  large  number  of  farmers,  take  advantage 
of  the  situation,  oleomargarine  be  still  extensively  made,  and  the  Gov- 
ernment be  deprived  of  the  revenue?  What  means  will  be  taken  to 
see  that  it  is  not  done  ? 

The  cattle  growers  of  this  country  have  never  but  once,  so  far  as  1 
know,  had  to  appeal  to  the  Congress  for  protection  of  their  industry, 
and  that  was  a  few  years  since  when  we  appeared  before  the  agri- 
cultural committees  of  both  Houses  to  ask  for  relief  against  foreign 
embargoes  on  American  meats.  I  am  glad  to  say  that  I  see  here  to-day 
several  members  of  this  committee  that  were  present  at  that  hearing. 
But  I  say,  gentlemen,  that  the  cattle-growing  States  of  this  country, 
which  are  largely  of  the  West  and  South,  are  watching  with  anxious 
eyes  the  outcome  of  this  measure.  They  would  keenly  feel  the  effect 
of  such  legislation,  and  I  do  not  believe  our  creamery  friends,  or,  to 
put  it  more  plainly,  the  dairy  States,  are  in  a  position  to  thus  injure  us. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  71 

Germany  and  several  other  European  countries  have  already  shut 
out  our  canned  meats  and  seriously  hampered  the  free  importation  of 
our  cattle  and  dressed  meats.  They  have  a  measure  now  before  the 
Reichstag  to  exclude  American  wheat,  which  would  seriously  touch 
the  hearts  and  purses  of  farmers  of  Minnesota,  Wisconsin,  Illinois, 
Nebraska,  Kansas,  Idaho,  the  Dakotas,  and  California.  And  as  they 
are  gradually  shutting  out  one  of  our  great  industries  after  the  other, 
can  our  butter-producing  people  expect  to  escape  for  very  long '4 
Fights  between  competing  industries  are  not  desirable  at  this  time, 
but  rather  a  united  people,  for  in  union  there  is  strength,  and  it  will 
take,  within  the  next  few  years,  the  united  efforts  of  the  producing 
portion  of  this  most  wonderfully  productive  country  to  combat  the 
jealous  and  selfish  interests  of  the  less  favored  nations  on  the  globe. 
Let  us  be  fair  and  just  to  one  another,  and  be  the  better  prepared  to 
combat  a  common  enemy. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  wish  to  file  the  resolutions  and  the  memorial 
of  the  Kansas  City  Live-Stock  Exchange,  of  which  I  am  a  represent- 
ative. 

THE  KANSAS  CITY  LIVE-STOCK  EXCHANGE, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. ,  February  8,  1900. 

The  following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted 
by  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Kansas  City  Live-Stock  Exchange  at 
a  regular  meeting  held  February  5,  1900: 

"  Whereas  certain  bills  have  been  introduced  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  United  States  looking  for  the  enactment  of  a  law, 
by  way  of  taxation,  whereby  the  manufacture,  sale,  importation,  and 
exportation  of  oleomargarine  will  be  ruined;  and 

§i  Whereas  such  bills,  if  passed  and  allowed  to  become  laws,  will 
build  up  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  tearing  down  and  ruining 
another,  the  logical  effect  of  which  will, be  the  granting  of  a  monopoly 
to  the  industry  sought  to  be  benefited;  and 

14  Whereas  the  destruction  of  the  oleomargarine  industry  will  reduce 
the  value  of  cattle  and  hogs  to  the  farmers  and  raisers  thereof,  as  well 
as  work  a  hardship  upon  millions  of  poor  people  who  are  unable  to 
pay  the  fancy  prices  asked  for  butter:  Therefore,  be  it 

Itwolved,  That  the  Kansas  City  Live-Stock  Exchange,  of  Kansas 
City,  Mo.,  earnestly  protest  against  the  enactment  of  the  law  pro- 
posed relating  to  oleomargarine;  and  be  it  further 

Besolyed,  That  the  board  of  directors  of  this  exchange  be  requested 
to  memorialize  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  against  the  passage  of 
a  law  or  laws  inimical  to  the  live-stock  industry,  and  that  a  copy 
of  these  resolutions  be  sent  to  the  honorable  the  Senate  and  the  House 
of  Representatives  of  the  United  States." 
Respectfully,  yours, 

W.  S.  HANNAH,  President. 

We  have  addressed  the  following  to  the  honorable  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States: 

"The  Kansas  City  Live-Stock  Exchange,  located  at  Kansas  City,  Mo., 
respectfully  represents  that  it  is  an  association  composed  of  raisers, 
owners,  and  buyers  and  sellers  of  live  stock,  whose  interests  extend  to 
and  cover  a  great  portion  of  the  West  and  Southwest  of  the  United 
States,  and  whose  business,  as  represented  by  the  individual  members 


72  OLEOMARGARINE. 

of  the  association,  deals  almost  exclusively  in  the  live-stock  industry. 
As  an  association  it  desires  to  enter  its  emphatic  protest  against  the 
enactment  of  House  bill  No.  6,  which  was  introduced  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  December  4,  1899,  by  Mr.  Tawney,  of  Minnesota,  pro- 
viding for  an  amendment  of  'An  act  denning  butter,  also  imposing  a 
tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale,  importation,  and  expor- 
tation of  oleomargarine.'  That  this  measure,  if  passed,  will  build  up 
one  industry  at  the  expense  of  tearing  down  and  ruining  another 
industry  and  will  in  effect  amount  to  the  giving  of  a  monopoly  to  the 
industry  sought  to  be  benefited  by  such  legislation.  That  the  bill 
above  referred  to,  if  it  become  a  law,  will  reduce  the  value,  to  the 
farmers  and  raisers  of  cattle,  an  average  of  $4  per  head  and  a  corre- 
sponding decrease  in  the  value  of  hogs. 

"The  use  of  the  fat  of  'beef,'  as  well  as  the  use  of  thousands  of  gal- 
lons of  milk  daily,  and  the  other  fats  used  in  making  oleomargarine, 
not  only  increases  the  value  of  every  beef  animal,  but  every  milch  cow 
and  every  hog,  and  acts  as  an  encouragement  to  the  owner  and  raiser 
of  cattle  and -hogs  to  improve  his  herd  and  raise  the  grade  of  his  live 
stock  so  that  they  will  carry  more  of  this  animal  fat,  and  will  in  the 
end  raise  the  standard  and  the  grade  of  cattle  and  hogs  throughout 
the  entire  United  States.  The  farmers  and  cattle  raisers  of  the  United 
States  are  directly  interested  in  such  legislation  as  depreciates  the 
value  of  every  animal  that  they  now  own  and  every  animal  that  should 
be  raised  hereafter. 

"It  is  but  just  that  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  producers  of 
cattle  and  hogs  should  be  duly  considered  and  respected  as  well  as 
should  the  desire  of  a  certain  class  whose  only  object  and  purpose  in 
legislation  of  this  kind  is  to  decrease  the  supply  of  butter  substitutes, 
thereby  increasing  the  demand  for  butter  and  the  price  thereof. 

"Oleomargarine,  as  now  manufactured,  is  just  as  wholesome  as  but- 
ter, and  many  chemists  have  declared  it  to  be  even  more  so.  It  is  sur- 
rounded by  the  numerous  safeguards  which  Congress  has  seen  fit  to 
provide,  and  it  is  a  cheap,  pure,  and  wholesome  substitute  for  butter. 
Its  cheapness  in  price  allows  it  to  become  a  substitute  for  expensive 
butter,  and  it  is  used  by  millions  of  poor  people  in  the  United  States 
who  are  unable  to  pay  the  price  demanded  for  creamery  product. 

"Oleomargarine  has,  by  experience,  proven  to  be  just  what  a  great 
majority  of  the  people  of  this  country  want,  and  in  the  name  of  the 
producers  of  catt]e  and  of  hogs  we  do  solemnly  protest  against  the 
enactment  of  legislation  calculated  to  cheapen  the  price  of  cattle  and 
hogs,  ruin  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  and  deprive  countless 
thousands  of  poor  people  of  the  use  of  a  cheap  but  wholesome,  nutri- 
tious, and  acceptable  article  of  food. 

"BOARD  OF  DIRECTORS  OF  THE 

KANSAS  CITY  LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE, 
"By  W.  S.  HANNAH,  President. 

"Attest: 

"11.  P.  WOODBURY,  Secretary" 

ORDER   OF   PROCEDURE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  is  ready  to  proceed  to-morrow  morning? 

Mr.  WALDEN.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  will  allow  me  just  a  moment, 
I  will  not  take  any  of  your  time.  I  desire  to  be  heard  extensively  on 
this  subject.  I  came  quite  a  long  distance  for  that  purpose,  and  as 


OLEOMARGARINE.  3 

the  time  for  adjournment  is  just  at  hand  I  should  like  to  be  heard  after 
the  holidays  on  this  subject.  I  represent  such  a  vast  interest — the 
Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange,  of  which  I  am  the  present  presi 
dent,  with  perhaps  some  400  members,  that  loan  millions  of  dollars 
annually  to  the  cattle  growers,  feeders,  etc. — I  say  the  interest  is  so 
large  that  the  few  moments  allowed  now  before  adjournment  will  not 
give  me  time  to  present  the  evidence. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Allow  me  to  interrupt  you.  As  you  have  come 
such  a  long  distance,  would  it  not  be  better  that  you  should  be  heard 
now  2  We  shall  be  still  more  busy  after  the  holidays.  We  can  give 
you  a  hearing  this  afternoon  or  to-morrow  morning.  The  Senate  wTill 
probably  adjourn  quite  early  to-day. 

Mr.  WALDEN.  Unfortunately,  I  am  here  on  another  mission  that  will 
require  all  my  time  during  to-morrow. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  What  length  of  time  would  you  like  to  have? 

Mr.  WALDEN.  Possibly  an  hour  or  more. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  just  learned  of  the  death  of  the  wife  of  the 
President  pro  tempore  of  the  Senate,  and  it  is  quite  likely  that  the 
Senate  will  adjourn  immediately,  and  we  can  come  right  back  here. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  If  that  is  .so,  it  adjourns  you  over  the  holidays? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly. 

Senator  MONEY.  But  it  does  not  adjourn  this  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  may  remain  in  session.  I  will  appoint 
a  subcommittee.  We  shall  probably  meet  this  afternoon.  I  suggest 
to  Mr.  Walden  that  he  appear  at  2  o'clock  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  May  I  ask  whether  the  committee  will  sit  during  the 
holidays  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly;  it  will  be  obliged  to  do  so. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  leave  for  Cincinnati  this  afternoon.  I  want  to  be 
heard,  and  I  should  like  to  be  heard  some  time  between  January  3 
and  10. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  shall  have  a  hearing  on  the  3d  of  January,  but 
the  state  of  business  is  such  that  our  hearings  then  will  have  to  be 
hurried.  It  will  not  be  possible  to  give  the  time  then  that  we  are 
ready  to  give  now  and  during  the  holidays,  so  that  matters  will  have 
to  be  put  in  writing  and  go  into  the  record  without  reading  to  a  con- 
siderable extent.  The  army  bill  is  of  pressing  importance,  and  that 
measure  will  come  up  immediately  after  the  holiday  recess.  Three 
members  of  this  committee  are  upon  the  Committee  on  Military 
Affairs.  So  you  can  see  the  urgency  which  compels  us  to  close  this 
hearing  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  3d  of  January. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Tour  honor,  I  see  all  that,  and  I  appreciate  it.  How- 
ever, there  is  one  thing  that  is  apparent  to  me  and  apparent  to  every 
member  of  the  committee.  It  is  that  there  is  no  organized  opposition 
to  this  bill.  Everybody  comes  in  and  talks  at  random.  That  condition 
will  continue  unless  we  are  allowed  some  time  to  organize  and  get 
together.  We  will  not  be  before  this  committee  properly  unless  we 
are  allowed  some  time  to  get  together  and  agree  on  the  objections  that 
should  be  urged  and  agree  on  somebody  to  present  those  objections. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  we  shall  have~a  hearing  the  3d  day  of  Janu- 
ary. We  want  to  give  you  all  the  time  we  possibly  can,  }^ou  know, 
and  to  be  just  as  liberal  in  that  respect  as  possible.  It  was  for  that 
purpose  that  I  thought  we  had  better  have  the  committee  open  during 
the  holidays.  But  still  we  shall  have  a  hearing  on  the  3d  of  January. 


74  OLEOMARGARINE. 

• 

Senator  BATE.  Mr.  Chairman,  will  you  not  agree  to  have  hearings 
later  than  that  date  ?  The  proposition  yesterday  was  to  keep  the  hear- 
ings open  until  the  10th  of  January,  and  we  differed  about  it.  I  wanted 
to  have  the  time  extended  to  the  15th.  I  have  telegrams  waiting  to 
be  answered,  and  the  parties  desire  to  be  heard  the  15th  of  January. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  right  to  give  that  time; 
that  is  only  six  weeks  before  final  adjournment. 

Senator  BATE.  Then  what  time  shall  I  indicate  to  them?  • 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  they  should  appear  here  on  the  3d  of  Janu- 
ary; probably  we  shall  not  finish  the  hearing  on  that  date,  but  we  will 
continue  it.  1  think  everybody  should  be  here  the  3d  of  January. 

Senator  BATE.  Between  the  3d  and  the  10th? 

Senator  MONEY.  I  have  answered  the  dispatches  1  have  received  to 
the  effect  that  the  parties  should  come  at  once;  that  nobody  knew  when 
the  hearings  would  close.  I  received  dispatches  of  the  same  tenor. 

Senator  BATE.  I  expect  that  I  had  better  state  to  them  that  they 
must  be  here  between  the  3d  and  the  10th,  because  the  proposition  of 
Senator  Allen  yesterday  was  to  close  the  hearing  on  the  10th. 

Mr.  WALDEN.  Am  1  to  understand  that  the  hearing  will  be  contin- 
ued between  the  3d  and  10th  of  January  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  will  be  open  on  the  3d  and  continue  as  long  as 
we  think  we  can  give  you  time — not  later  than  the  10th,  but  I  think  it 
will  be  concluded  that  week.  The  3d  is  on  Thursday,  and  I  hope  to 
conclude  it  that  week — in  three  days. 

Senator  BATE.  But  let  us  understand  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  see 
what  gentlemen  desire.  I  want  to  know  it  myself.  No  one  will  be  shut 
out  or  excluded  up  to  the  10th  of  the  month,  and  if  we  can  get  through 
before  the  10th  we  will  do  it.  Let  us  have  that  understood. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that.  There  will  be  nobody 
excluded  up  to  some  date,  say  the  6th,  covering  the  3d,  4th,  and  5th. 
We  shall  have  to  be  able  to  close  it  in  that  time,  because  the  hearings 
have  been  very  full  before  the  House,  and  anyone  can  appear  during 
the  holidays  and  have  all  the  time  he  wants. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Do  I  understand  that  it  is  the  intention  of 
the  Chair  to  appoint  a  subcommittee  to  sit  during  the  holidays  2 

The  CHAIRMAN.  1  will  appoint  a  subcommittee  now,  consisting  of 
yourself,  Senator  Dolliver,  and  Senator  Heitfeld,  or  any  number  of 
you,  and  any  other  members  of  the  committee  may  come  in  and  take 
an  equal  part.  I  expect  to  be  here  myself  most  of  the  time. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  wish  to  ask,  for  information,  if  it  is  intended 
to  postpone  the  hearing  to  suit  the  individual  convenience  of  all  the 
gentlemen  who  I  see  would  like  to  have  all  the  month  of  January  in 
which  to  be  heard?  I  do  not  see  the  necessity  of  appointing  a  subcom- 
mittee at  all.  It  would  be  well  for  the  whole  committee  to  adjourn 
until  those  gentlemen  get  together  and  decide  when  they  would  like  to 
have  us  consider  this  measure. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  would  save  the  time  of  the  committee. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  say  that-  from  the  standpoint  of  the  gentle- 
men who  desire  to  be  heard. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  committee  is  in  the  nature  of  a  court,  and  those 
gentlemen  are  here  as  witnesses  and  advocates. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  We  have  not  summoned  them,  however. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  must  come  at  our  convenience. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  thought  so.     That  is  right. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  75 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Still,  we  wish  to  give  them  all  the  fair  time  we 
possibly  can. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Perhaps  ( 1  misunderstood  the  matter  yesterday 
when  it  was  before  the  committee;  but  I  know  it  was  my  understand- 
ing, and  it  was  the  understanding  of  most  of  those  who  were  here,  that 
the  hearings  would  be  continued  from  the  3d  until  the  10th.  It  was, 
therefore,  thought  by  most  of  those  opposed  to  the  bill  that  there 
would  be  no  hearings  during  the  holidays.  Those  who  are  here,  like 
myself,  are  men  who  have  a  great  deal  to  do  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
and  we  feel  as  if  we  must  be  home  at  that  time.  Of  course  the  busi- 
ness of  the  committee  is  of  more  importance  to  us  than  our  business 
at  home,  but  at  the  same  time  we  can  not  help  urging  that  our  busi- 
ness at  home  demands  immediate  and  vigorous  attention  at  this  closing 
season  of  the  year. 

For  that  reason  I  had  anticipated  that  after  to-day  we  might  go 
home  and  appear  on  the  3d  of  January,  when  we  will  so  consolidate 
our  forces  as  to  take  as  little  time  as  possible  before  the  committee.  I 
can  say  for  one  that  if  I  had  the  time  from  now  until  the  3d  or  4th  or 
5th — along  there  somewhere — I  would  speak  before  the  committee  on 
some  day,  and  I  assure  you  now  my  only  purpose  in  speaking  before 
the  committee  is  to  be  of  some  assistance  to  it. 

In  addition  to  everything  that  has  been  said,  I  should  like  to  have 
the  privilege  of  giving  my  own  digest  of  what  the  evidence  up  to  date 
has  shown,  and  I  should  also  like  to  give,  in  a  mathematical  calcula- 
tion, exactly  the  result  indicated  by  one  question  of  the  gentleman 
to-day,  which  is  the  result  to  the  farmer. 

Senator  HANSBKOUGH.  When  will  you  be  read}^  to  do  that? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  At  any  time  on  the  3d  or  any  day  thereafter.  I 
will  take  one  hour. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course  the  dairy  interest  is  entitled  to  a  hearing 
to  make  any  rebutting  statements  they  may  wish  to  present  after  your 
hearing. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  understand. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  we  will  settle  it  in  this  way:  We  will  give 
you  three  days — Thursday,  Friday,  and  Saturday,  the  8d,  4th,  and  5th 
of  January.  I  think  that  is  a  reasonable  time.  I  will  come  here  at 
night,  if  you  wish,  and  hold  sessions  all  night;  I  do  not  care.  Do  you 
not  think  that  that  is  a  sufficient  and  reasonable  time  \ 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  have  no  objection  to  that.  1  think  it  is  reason- 
able, and  I  think  with  that  time  sessions  during  the  holidays  would  be 
entirely  unnecessary.  However,  I  speak  only  for  myself. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  1  will  ask  another  question.  Is  there  anyone  here 
who  would  like  to  be  heard  during  the  holidays  or  this  afternoon? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  should  like  to  say  a  word  as  one 
of  the  members  of  the  subcommittee.  I  have  not  been  asked  whether 
I  could  be  he^e.  I  will  be  in  the  city,  but  I  could  not  give  an  hour 
to-inorrow  or  Monday.  Thereafter  I  am  willing  to  sit  as  long  as  may 
be  desired. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Perhaps  the  subcommittee  might  hear  anyone  who 
is  ready. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Allow  me  to  suggest  that  as  far  as  I  am  personally 
concerned,  and  1  think  it  will  be  the  case  with  most  of  the  people  who 
are  here,  this  matter  came  on  us  so  suddenly  that  if  I  were  to  attempt 
to  talk  on  the  subject  now  and  do  my  side  of  it  justice  it  would  take 


76  OLEOMARGARINE. 

several  hours,  and  I  think,  from  what  I  have  seen  of  the  subject,  if  I 
were  given  time  I  could  reduce  all  I  want  to  say  in  about  a  twenty- 
five  minutes'  talk. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anyone  here  who  wishes  to  be  heard  now 
or  during  the  holidays? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Chairman,  let  me  say  a  word.  I  have  been 
informed  by  the  president  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Association, 
which  represents  all  these  varied  associations  in  the  West,  that  letters 
have  been  addressed  to  the  chairman  and  other  members  of  this  com- 
mittee requesting  the  privilege  of  that  association  to  be  heard  through 
a  committee  to  be  appointed  by  them  at  their  coming  national  conven- 
tion at  Salt  Lake  City,  and  that  they  could  not  get  their  committee 
here  before  the  1st  of  February. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  entirely  out  of  the  question,  Judge.  Con- 
gress can  not  wait  for  the  live-stock  association.  I  .think  these  gentle- 
men will  admit  that  we  are  trying  to  be  fair  and  to  give  them  all  the 
time  we  can. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  should  like  to  explain  the  reason  of  their  request- 
ing that  time.  They  are  now  engaged  in  assembling  and  preparing  for 
assembling  at  a  national  convention  at  Salt  Lake  City  on  the  15th,  16th, 
17th,  and  18th  of  January.  It  will  be  a  convention  containing  repre- 
sentatives of  all  the  cattle -growing  interests  and  live-stock  interests  of 
every  kind  of  the  West  and  of  the  whole  country,  really.  New  York 
State  is  represented,  as  well  as  others.  In  that  convention  they  expect 
to  take  some  definite  action  and  appoint  a  committee. 

In  the  meantime  I  have  been  requested  to  represent  the  association 
here  and  ask  that  all  the  time  be  given  to  them  that  is  possible  for  the 
purpose  of  presenting  their  views.  They  have  never  been  heard  as  an 
association.  They  have  never  gone  into  politics  nor  into  any  business 
of  this  kind.  They  have  stood  still  and  watched  the  operations  of  the 
gentlemen  who  are  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  until 
they  see  that  their  interests  would  be  vitally  affected,  stricken  down  in 
many  respects,  by  this  proposed  legislation,  and  for  the  first  time  they 
desire  to  appear  before  the  legislative  department  of  the  Government 
and  present  their  protest  against  this  proposed  legislation,  and  they 
wish  to  dc  it  in  a  way  that  will  at  least  set  forth  the  varied  interests 
which  this  great  association  represents. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  When  will  they  be  ready  to  go  on  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  As  I  stated,  they  meet  in  convention  on  the  15th  of 
January. 

Senator  MONEY.  While  dividing  out  time  here  I  must  claim  some 
time  for  the  cotton-seed  oil  men.  Everybody  knows  that  cotton-seed 
'oil  is  much  better  than  butter,  oleomargarine,  beef,  or  anything  else. 
You  all  use  it  on  your  tables  as  olive  oil,  and  you  ought  to  use  more 
of  it.  While  they  do  not  want  to  compel  the  use  of  cotton-seed  oil,  at 
any  rate  they  want  to  be  heard,  and  they  want  you  to  give  them  a 
chance,  I  know. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly.  Already  several  Southern  Senators  have 
spoken  to  me  about  that  interest  and  I  have  told  them  that  its  repre- 
sentatives might  be  heard  on  the  3d  of  January. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  will  telegraph  them  to  come  on  at  once,  and  some 
of  them  will  be  here  during  the  holidays. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Some  of  them  have  expressed  themselves  as  satisfied 
with  that  date.  Judge  Springer,  1  should  like  very  much  to  accom- 


OLEOMARGARINE.  77 

niodate  you  on  old  scores  between  us,  but  I  think  we  do  all  we  can 
consistently  with  proper  attention  to  the  public  business  by  postpon- 
ing the  hearing  to  the  3d  of  January.  I  have  communicated  with  the 
live-stock  association  at  Denver  and  told  them  that  that  Avas  the  best 
v/e  could  possibly  do.  No  one  has  given  any  notice  to  appear,  and  if 
there  is  no  one  here  who  wishes  to  be  heard  to-day  we  will  adjourn  the 
full  committee  until  the  3d  of  January,  but  the  subcommittee  will  be 
here  subject  to  call.  If  anyone  notifies  the  clerk  of  the  committee  that 
he  would  like  to  be  heard  during  the  holidays,  the  clerk  will  summon 
the  subcommittee. 

The  committee  (at  12  o'clock  meridian)  adjourned  until  Thursday, 
January  3,  1901,  at  10.30  a.  m. 


THURSDAY,  January  3,  1901. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Hansbrough  (acting  chairman),  Warren,  Foster, 
Bate,  and  Heitfeld. 

Also,  Hon.  W.  D.  Hoard,  president  of  the  National  Dairy  Union; 
C.  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Union;  H.  C.  Adams, 
daily  and  food  commissioner  of  Wisconsin;  George  L.  Flanders, 
assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture  of  New  York;  James  Hewes, 
president  of  the  Produce  Exchange,  Baltimore,  and  vice-president  of 
the  National  Dairy  Union,  of  Maryland;  W.  A.  Rogers,  representing 
the  Agricultural  Society  of  Northern  New  York;  F.  B.  Richardson, 
assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture,  fifth  agricultural  division,  of 
New  York;  S.  B.  Medairy,  of  Baltimore,  representing  dairy  interests; 
E.  B.  Norris,  master  of  the  State  Grange  of  New  York;  Hon.  Wm. 
M.  Springer,  of  Illinois,  representing  the  National  Livestock  Associa- 
tion; Frank  M.  Mathewson,  president  of  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing 
Company,  of  Providence,  R.  I.;  Charles  E.  Schell,  representing  the 
Ohio  Butterine  Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  W.  E.  Miller,  repre- 
senting the  Armour  Packing  Company,  of  Kansas  City,  Mo.;  John  F. 
Gelke,  representing  Braun  &  Fitts,  of  Chicago,  111.,  and  others. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Judge  Springer  will  now  be  heard. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  WILLIAM  M.  SPRINGEE. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
appear  before  you  in  behalf  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Association. 
A  list  of  the  associations  that  compose  the  National  Association  is 
printed  in  the  hearings  before  the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture,, 
which  reported  the  pending  bill,  on  pages  75  and  76.  They  number 
126  associations  in  all,  and  comprise  a  majority  of  all  the  live  stock 
organizations  now  existing  in  this  country,  and  they  represent  a  capi- 
tal of  over  $600,000,000.  The  association  held  a  national  convention 
at  Fort  Worth,  Tex.,  in  January  a  year  ago.  Here  is  a  book  contain- 
ing the  proceedings  of  the  convention  at  Fort  Worth. 

Another  national  convention  of  the  association  will  be  held  in  Salt 
Lake  City,  Utah,  on  the  15th,  16th,  17th,  and  18th  of  the  present 
month  (January,  1901). 

The  Fort  Worth  convention  adopted  a  memorial  to  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  which  is  as  follows: 


78  OLEOMARGAEINE. 

"MEMORIAL  No.  1. — OLEOMARGARINE  LEGISLATION. 

"  To  the  honorable  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States: 

"Your  orator,  the  National  Live  Stock  Association,  respectfully 
represents  unto  your  honorable  body  that  it  is  an  organization  com- 
posed of  over  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  of  the  principal  stock 
raisers,  feeders,  and  breeders'  organizations  and  those  of  allied  inter- 
ests located  throughout  the  United  States,  and  was  organized,  among 
other  things,  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  best  interests  of  the 
live-stock  industry  as  a  whole. 

"Your  orator,  in  behalf  of  its  constituency,  desires  to  enter  its 
emphatic  protest  against  the  enactment  of  House  bill  6,  introduced 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  December  4,  1899,  by  Mr.  Tawney, 
providing  for  an  amendment  to  4  an  act  defining  butter,  also  impos- 
ing a  tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale,  importation,  and 
exportation  of  oleomargarine,'  and  in  support  of  its  protest  desires 
to  record  a  few  of  the  many  reasons  in  support  of  its  contention. 

' '  This  measure  is  a  species  of  class  legislation  of  the  most  dangerous 
kind,  calculated  to  build  up  and  restore  one  industry  at  the  expense 
of  another,  equally  as  important.  It  seeks  to  impose  an  unjust, 
uncalled-for,  and  unwarranted  burden  upon  one  of  the  principal  com- 
mercial industries  of  the  country  for  the  purpose  of  prohibiting  its 
manufacture,  thereby  destroying  competition,  as  the  manufacturers 
can  not  assume  the  additional  burdens  sought  to  be  imposed  by  this 
measure  and  sell  their  product  in  competition  with  butter.  The 
enactment  of  this  measure  would  throttle  competition,  render  useless 
the  immense  establishments  erected  at  great  expense  for  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine,  deprive  thousands  of  employees  of  the  oppor- 
tunity to  gain  a  livelihood,  and  deny  the  people,  and  especially  the 
workingmen  and  their  dependencies,  of  a  wno1esome  article  of  diet. 

"  In  oleomargarine  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  consumers  of  this 
country,  especially  the  working  classes,  have  a  wholesome,  nutritious, 
and  satisfactory  article  of  diet,  which  before  its  advent  they  were 
obliged,  owing  to  the  high  price  of  butter  and  their  limited  means,  to 
go  without. 

"The  'butter  fat'  of  an  average  beef  animal,  for  the  purpose  of 
making  oleomargarine,  is  worth  from  $3  to  $4  per  head  more  than  it 
was  before  the  advent  of  oleomargarine,  when  the  same  had  to  be  used 
for  tallow;  which  increased  value  of  the  beef  steer  has  been  added  to 
the  market  value  of  the  animal,  and  consequently  to  the  profit  of  the 
,  producer. 

"To  legislate  this  article  of  commerce  out  of  existence,  as  the  pas- 
sage of  this  law  would  surely  do,  would  compel  slaughterers  to  use 
this  fat  for  tallow,  and  depreciate  the  market  value  of  the  beef  cattle 
of  this  country  $3  to  $4  per  head,  which  would  entail  a  loss  on  the 
producers  of  this  country  of  millions  of  dollars. 

"The  use  of  this  fat  for  the  purpose  set  forth  is  an  encouragement 
to  the  producer  to  improve  his  herd  and  raise  a  class  of  grade  or  thor- 
oughbred cattle  capable  of  making  and  carrying  this  fat  rather  than 
the  common  or  scrub  animal  which  is  so  hard  and  unprofitable  to  fat- 
ten, and  the  cattle  raiser  or  producer  has  come  to  know  the  value  of 
this  product,  and  that  the  amount  of  the  increase  in  the  market  value 


OLEOMAKGARIKE.  79 

of  his  matured  animal  depends  somewhat  on  the  value  of  the  c  butter 
fat '  carried  by  the  animal. 

u  The  rights  and  privileges  of  the  producers  of  beef  cattle  should  be 
as  well  respected  as  those  of  others,  and  as  they  are  the  beneficiaries 
in  the  manufacture  of  this  wholesome  article  of  food,  they  should  not 
be  burdened  with  unnecessary  special  taxes  or  needless  restrictions  in 
the  manufacture  of  this  product  other  than  is  absolutely  necessary  for 
the  support  of  the  Government  and  the  proper  governmental  regula- 
tions surrounding  the  handling  of  the  same. 

"This  product  of  the  'beef  steer'  should  receive  at  the  hands  of 
Congress  no  greater  exactions  than  that  imposed  upon  competing  food 
products.  It  is  already  surrounded  by  numerous  safeguards,  which 
Congress  in  its  wisdom  has  seen  fit  to  provide,  stipulating  severe  pun- 
ishment for  selling  same  under  misrepresentation.  It  has,  by  experi- 
ence, proven  to  be  just  what  a  large  majority  of  the  people  of  this 
country  want,  and  in  behalf  of  the  producers  and  consumers  of  this 
great  country  we  do  solemnly  protest  against  the  enactment  of  legisla 
tion  calculated  to  ruin  a  great  industry  and  to  deprive  not  only  the 
working  classes  but  many  others  of  a  cheap,  wholesome,  nutritious, 
and  acceptable  article  of  food." 

This  memorial  was  discussed  in  open  convention  and  adopted  by  a 
rising  vote. 

In  order  to  show  the  spirit  of  the  convention  and  the  great  interest 
manifested  in  the  subject,  I  will  read,  with  permission  of  the  commit- 
tee, extracts  from  some  of  the  speeches  on  the  adoption  of  the  memorial. 
Colonel  Hobbs,  who  is  the  editor  of  the  National  Provisioner,  a  paper 
published  in  Chicago  and  New  York  in  the  interest  of  stock  raisers, 
said: 

"  Mr.  President,  I  would  like  to  make  a  few  remarks.  I  do  not  want 
to  be  personal  or  talk  sharp,  but  our  chief  chemist  is  a  practical  pack- 
ing-house chemist.  He  has  been  in  packing  houses  of  the  West  for 
the  last  fifteen  years.  We  have  had  him  analyze  a  large  number  of 
samples  of  butterine.  These  samples  were  from  every  Government 
inspected  butterine  or  oleomargarine  manufactory  in  the  United 
States.  We  have  done  this  to  test  the  melting  point.  It  has  been 
said  that  102  is  its  melting  point,  while  the  temperature  of  the  stomach 
is  only  98.  Therefore  it  could  not  be  melted  in  the  stomach.  There 
were  many  other  objections  raised  that  we  wanted  to  investigate.  I 
want  to  state  that  we  have  analyzed  samples  taken  from  trade  and 
from  factories,  and  that  the  melting  point  of  butterine  is  just  under 
91  degrees  and  up  to  97  degrees,  the  latter  the  highest  melting  point 
of  the  crudest  butterine  made  in  any  Government  inspected  factory  in 
the  United  States — and  mind  you,  nobodj^  else  has  a  legal  right  to 
make  it.  It  does  not  need  paraffin  to  hold  it  up. 

•'  The  melting  point  of  a  pound  of  choice  dairy  butter  was  91°  and  a 
shade  over.  The  melting  point  of  the  best  butterine  is  91°  and  just 
under  91°. 

"In  butterine  is  used  beef  and  hog  products  and  cotton-seed  oil — 
all  of  the  highest  and  best  products — so  that  there  is  not  an  unhealthy 
element  in  it.  The  hog  product  that  goes  into  it,  the  beef  product 
that  goes  into  it,  and  the  cotton-seed  oil  are  the  highest  and  purest 
products.  It  is  the  same  as  butter — chemically  the  same. 

"If  Congress  passes  this  10  per  cent  bill,  it  will  simply  kill  the  but- 
terine industry;  it  will  hit  the  cotton-seed  industry;  it~will  hit  every 


80  OLEOMAKGARINE. 

hog  and  every  cow  in  this  country.  There  is  27  per  cent  of  milk  in  it. 
It  will  hit  every  steer  in  this  country,  and  I  want  to  ask  this  convention 
to  pass  this  memorial  with  a  rising  vote  and  send  it  to  Washington  to 
defeat  this  iniquitous  bill. 

"  Butter  is  higher  than  ever  before.  It  is  now  27  cents  per  pound. 
Butter  never  was  shorter  in  this  country  than  now.  Let  the  butter 
people  go  and  stop  that  condition  before  they  ask  to  kill  an  existing 
industry  that  is  helping  the  farmers  of  this  country.  1  thank  you." 

This  was  followed  by  applause,  and  one  delegate  said  u Amen,"  which 
may  indicate  the  feeling  which  was  manifested. 

Mr.  Sotham,  of  the  American  Hereford  Breeders'  Association,  of 
Chillicothe,  Mo.,  said: 

"We  have  no  objections,  as  beef  raisers,  to  the  contention  of  the 
dairymen  if  butterine  or  oleomargarine  is  sold  for  just  what*  it  is,  but 
I  think,  and  you  all  seem  to,  that  it  is  wrong  to  put  a  tax  on  a  product 
which  is  exactly  the  same  as  butter,  pronounced  exactly  the  same  by 
the  best  chemical  process;  and  while  we  would  be  willing  to  establish 
the  product  on  the  best  footing  if  sold  for  just  what  it  is,  as  butterine, 
we  also  want  to  see  the  dairymen  hold  in  mind  a  matter  in  which  we 
are  interested  with  them.  Every  time  you  get  a  miserable  and  inferior 
butter,  of  farm  butter,  these  fellows  straightway  call  it  oleomargarine, 
while  the  fact  is  the  product  of  these  packing  houses  to-day  is  better 
than  two-thirds  of  the  butter  that  is  produced  in  this  country.  Any 
of  us  would  rather  have  it  on  our  tables."  [Applause]. 

This  fact  I  do  not  know  and  will  not  vouch  for. 

.  The  motion  was  then  carried  by  a  rising  vote,  there  being  but  3 
votes  in  opposition  to  the  adoption  of  the  memorial.  So  that  may  be 
considered  as  being  before  this  committee  as  the  unanimous  expression 
of  those  who  have  been  engaged  in  cattle  raising,  which  embraces  also 
the  hog  industry  and  the  other  live-stock  interests. 

The  book  containing  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  furnishes 
some  valuable  statistics  in  reference  to  the  cattle  industry  of  the  United 
States.  On  page  82  will  be  found  statistics  of  the  number  and  value 
of  milch  cows  and  other  cattle  in  the  United  States  January  1,  1900. 

Milch  cows,  16,292,000;  average  value,  $31.60,  and  total  value, 
$514,812,106.  Other  cattle,  27,610,054;  average  value,  $24.97,  and 
total  value,  $689,486,260.  The  number  of  other  cattle  exceeded  the 
number  of  milch  cows  11,308,800,  and  their  value  exceeded  the  value 
of  milch  cows  $174,674,154. 

The  National  Live-Stock  Association  has  not  heretofore  appeared 
before  any  committee  of  Congress,  through  its  own  representatives,  to 
oppose  the  legislation  contained  in  the  pending  bill. 

Several  of  the  members  of  the  National  Association  appeared  before 
the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture,  and  their  remarks  will  be  found 
in  the  hearings  of  that  committee  which  are  before  you. 

This  is  the  volume  which  was  laid  before  you  by  Representative 
Grout,  and  I  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  some  of  the  remarks 
in  this  book,  beginning  on  page  70. 

I  also  call  your  attention  to  the  remarks  of  John  S.  Hobbs,  editor  of 
the  National  Provisioner,  of  New  York  and  Chicago,  on  pages  130  to 
141.  It  contains  much  valuable  information  on  the  subject  now  before 
this  committee. 

Also  to  the  statement  of  Mr.  J.  A.  Hake,  president  of  the  Live- 
stock Exchange  of  South  Omaha,  Nebr.,  printed  on  pages  157  to  166 
pf  the  House  hearings,  which  contains  valuable  statistics. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  81 

As  I  do  not  desire  to  repeat  any  of  the  statements  which  have  been 
made  before  the  House  committee,  as  this  committee  has  the  printed 
hearings  before  it,  I  will  only  call  attention  to  some  of  the  remarks 
before  the  House  committee. 

There  is  one  point,  however,  to  which  I  desire  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  committee,  and  that  is  the  unanimity  with  which  all  those  who 
oppose  the  passage  of  the  pending  bill  declare  that  its  passage  will 
destroy  the  oleomargarine  industry  in  the  United  States.  The  testi- 
mony on  this  point  is  so  clear  and  emphatic  that  there  can  scarcely  be 
any  doubt  of  the  fact.  The  persons  who  have  testified  upon  this  point 
are  engaged  in  the  business  or  have  thoroughly  investigated  it.  They 
know  whereof  they  speak,  and  Congress  ought  to  give  their  testimony 
the  most  serious  consideration. 

But  the  friends  of  the  bill  declare  their  purpose  to  destroy  the  indus- 
try. They  have  framed  the  bill  with  that  end  in  view,  and  having  the 
framing  of  it  with  that  end  in  view,  they  ought  to  have  been  able  to  so 
express  themselves  as  to  carry  out  their  purpose. 

I  call  attention  to  a  portion  of  the  minorit}^  report  of  th<  Committee 
on  Agriculture  of  the  House,  which  is  before  you,  in  which  Mr. 
Adams,  the  pure-food  commissioner  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  in  his 
testimony  before  the  committee,  March  7,  1900,  said: 

4 '  There  is  no  use  beating  about  the  bush  in  this  matter.  We  want 
to  pass  this  law  and  drive  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  out  of  the 
business." 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Mr.  Chairman 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Adams  is  here  and  can  state  for  himself. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  think  it  is  proper  at  this  time  to  state  that  the  state- 
ment in  the  report  of  the  minority  as  quoted,  and  properly  read  by  the 
gentleman,  is  absolutely  and  unqualifiedly  false.  I  made  no  such  state- 
ment. There  was  no  stenographer  present  at  that  hearing.  I  have 
never  had  any  such  idea.  I  simply  stated  that  our  purpose  was  to  stop 
the  fraud  in  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  and  nothing  more;  that 
we  had  no  purpose  to  stop  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine, 
but  simply  of  the  colored  imitation — counterfeit  product. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  so  understood  the  gentleman.  There  is  no  other 
kind  of  oleomargarine  made  except  colored  oleomargarine. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Judge,  did  you  quote  from  the  report  of  the 
minority  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  a  part  of  their  proceedings  I  was  quot- 
ing, and  that  has  been  put  before  the  committee  by  Mr.  Grout.  I 
assumed  it  was  correct  or  I  should  not  have  referred  to  it.  But  I  have 
in  my  hand  a  newspaper  entitled  ''Hoard's  Dairyman,"  a  recent  pub- 
lication, in  which  there  is  an  extract  from  an  address  of  Mr.  Adams, 
who  has  just  spoken  to  the  committee,  before  the  Wisconsin  Dairy- 
men's Association,  in  which  I  find  this  statement: 

' ;  Now,  why  do  we  want  this  tax  ?  I  will  tell  you  why.  Because 
oleomargarine,  which  is  colored  in  imitation  of  }^ellow  butter,  is  a 
counterfeit,  which  the  average  purchaser  can  not  detect,  and  it  is  placed 
upon  the  tables  of  the  people  and  consumed  by  men  and  women  who 
ask  for  butter  and  think  they  are  getting  it,  and  we  want  to  put  a  tax 
upon  the  article  so  high  that  they  can  not  place  it  upon  the  markets  of 
this  country  in  imitation  of  butter." 

S.  Rep.  2043 6 


82  OLEOMARGARINE. 

That  I  presume  is  correct. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  absolutely  correct. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  That  is  correct.  In  this  connection,  therefore,  I 
desire  to  say  that  I  believe  it  will  be  the  testimony  of  all  those  gentle- 
men engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  that  all  the  product 
made  in  this  country  is  colored  practically  in  imitation  of  butter. 
There  may  be  some  that  is  not  colored,  but  the  manufacturers  gener- 
ally regard  it  as  necessary  to  color  it  in  order  to  make  it  salable. 

Other  statements  were  made  before  the  Committee  on  Agriculture 
of  the  House,  and  of  similar  purport  to  that  which  I  have  read. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  be  pardoned,  there  is  a  state- 
ment credited  to  me  which  appears  there  that  not  only  was  never  made 
before  any  committee,  but  it  purports  to  be  a  letter  written  by  me  to 
a  Virginia  dairyman,  and  which  was  never  written  by  me.  I  never 
heard  of  it  and  never  thought  of  an}Tthing  of  the  kind.  If  it  has  ever 
appeared  it  is  a  forgery.  I  denounced  it  so  before  the  House  com- 
mittee and  it  appeared  as  such  in  the  Congressional  Record. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  appeared  in  the  Congressional  Record  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  As  soon  as  I  saw  the  minority  report  I  telegraphed 
to  Congressman  Grout  to  lay  the  matter  before  the  House,  that  that 
purported  letter,  if  there  was  ever  any  ground  for  it,  was  a  forgery. 
I  was  not  prepared  to  say  that  someone  in  the  office  might  not  have 
sent  it  out  in  my  absence  while  I  was  here.  But  at  the  time  it  pur- 
ports to  have  been  written  I  was  in  Washington  and  not  in  Chicago, 
and  I  was  sending  out  no  literature  from  here.  When  I  went  home  I 
questioned  my  clerks  and  assistants  there  and  could  find  no  record  of 
such  a  letter  having  ever  been  written  to  anybody,  or  of  anyone  who 
ever  had  any  idea  of  sending  it  out. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I,  of  course,  assume  that  matters  which  appear  in  an 
official  document  are  there  with  some  responsible  authority,  and  I 
usually  quote  them  without  apology ;  but  the  gentleman's  statement  is 
to  be  considered  as  controlling  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  point  was  raised  and  never  has  been  met. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  do  not  desire  to  hold  the  gentleman  or  anyone 
else  responsible  for  any  statements  which  he  has  not  made.  It  is  a 
very  commendable  course  on  the  part  of  these  gentlemen  that  they 
should  desire  that  the  committee  would  understand  exactly  what  they 
have  stated,  and  that  they  should  not  be  misrepresented. 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  the  pending  bill,  I  desire  to 
enter  my  protest  against  the  course  pursued  by  some  of  the  gentlemen 
who  favor  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

I  read  from  the  argument  of  ex-Governor  Hoard,  of  Wisconsin, 
printed  on  the  first  page  of  the  hearings.  If  this  is  not  correctly 
printed,  the  Governor  is  present  and  he  can  correct  it.  I  will  take  it 
back  if  it  is  not  stated  correctly.  This  report  states,  as  coming  from 
Governor  Hoard,  the  following: 

"The  oleomargarine  combine  consists  of  less  than  twenty  manufac- 
turers, who  have  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  break  down  these  State 
laws,  and,  by  bribing  merchants,  by  deception  of  all  kinds,  by  sub- 
sidizing city  newspapers,  by  employing  leading  politicians,  to  so  neu- 
tralize the  effect  and  administration  of  those  laws  that  they  may  force 
their  counterfeit  upon  the  public.  These  manufacturers  are  assuming 
to  override  all  law.  They  stand  behind  all  infractions  of  State  and 
national  laws,  and  furnish  money  for  the  defense  of  their  agents  when 
arrested. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  83 

uOn  one  side  stands  one  of  the  greatest  of  our  agricultural  inter- 
ests, together  with  the  millions  of  consumers  who  are  tired  of  being 
swindled. 

"On  the  other  side  stands  the  oleomargarine  trust,  engaged  in 
manufacturing  a  counterfeit,  depending  on  lawbreaking,  falsehood, 
and  deception  for  its  success,  backed  up  with  millions  of  capital." 

I  do  not  represent  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine,  but  I  do 
insist  that  neither  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  nor  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  live-stock  interest  or  the  cotton-oil  industry  of  the 
United  States  should  be  arraigned  before  this  committee  as,  in  the 
language  which  I  have  read,  guilty  of  such  disreputable  practices  as 
are  alleged. 

Mr.  HOARD.  May  I  interrupt  the  gentleman  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  will  say,  Judge  Springer,  that  the  statement  there 
made  is  based  on  the  testimony  of  the  dairy  and  food  commissioners 
of  the  United  States,  who  have  met  those  very  propositions  and  facts 
in  their  work—  the  absolute  bribery  of  merchants  —  offering  to  place 
certified  checks  in  my  own  State  on  deposit,  to  defend  merchants 
against  the  infraction  of  our  State  laws  if  they  would  take  up  the  sale 
of  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  assume  that  I  have  correctly  quoted  you  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  have,  entirely. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  The  gentleman  has  not  disclaimed  it,  as  was  done  in 
the  other  case.  But  other  methods  have  been  adopted  by  the  friends 
of  this  bill  against  which  I  desire  to  enter  my  solemn  protest,  and  that 
is  the  system  of  bringing  undue  influence  to  bear  upon  the  constituents 
of  those  who  have  had  the  courage  to  act  in  Congress  so  as  to  carry 
out  their  convictions  upon  this  great  question.  When  the  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture  of  the  House  of  Representatives  was 
a  candidate  for  reelection  at  the  last  election,  circulars  were  sent  into 
his  district  bearing  the  signature  of  the  gentleman  who  is  here,  Mr. 
Knight.  I  will  not  ask  the  committee  to  consider  those  circulars, 
unless  the  gentleman  here  states  that  this  paper  emanated  from  him 
[handing  paper  to  Mr.  Knight]. 

Mr.  KNIGHT  [examining  paper].  That  was  a  letter  written  to  Mr. 
P.  P.  Hubbard,  of  Perry,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.   By  you? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir;  a  letter,  and  not  a  circular. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  A  letter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  A  personal  letter  written  to  Mr.  Hubbard. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Hubbard  was  a  constituent  of  Mr.  Wadsworth? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir.  He  wrote  to  me  and  asked  me  about  Mr. 
Wadsworth's  position,  and  I  answered  it.  You  have  got  the  letter. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  This,  then,  is  the  answer  that  was  given  so  as  to  rep- 
resent the  course  of  Mr.  Wadsworth.  The  letter  is  as  follows: 


NATIONAL  DAIRY  UNION, 
"OFFICE  OF  THE  SECRETARY,  188  SOUTH  WATER  STREET, 

"  Chicago,  III.,  October  18,  1900. 
"Mr.  P.  P.  HUBBARD,  Perry,  N.  Y. 

"DEAR  SIR:  You  ask  me  to  what  extent  Congressman  Wadsworth 
opposed  the  Grout  bill.  Well,  if  you  have  ever  been  in  court  and 
observed  a  lawyer  defending  \\  criminal  yon  can  understand  how  he 
fought  for  the  oleomargarine  makers.  He  was  the  most  active  oppo- 


84  OLEOMARGARINE. 

nent  we  had  in  Congress.  He  spent  more  time  lobbying  against  our 
bill  than  even  the  acknowledged  agent  of  the  oleomargarine  makers — 
Lorimer,  of  Chicago — to  whose  tender  mercies  Wadsworth  consigned 
the  Grout  bill  when  it  was  referred  to  his  committee,  that  it  might  be 
smothered. 

"As  to  Wadsworth's  bill,  offered  as  a  substitute  for  the  Grout  bill, 
it  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  deep-laid  plan  to  break  down  com- 
pletely all  anticolor  laws,  including  New  York.  His  bill  makes 
1 -pound  packages  original  packages  so  they  can  be  sold  under  pro- 
tection of  the  interstate-commerce  laws  by  the  retailer  with  a  &48 
license.  Only  wholesalers  paying  $480  can  sell  an  original  package 
now,  and  they  can't  sell  less  than  10  pounds.  While  no  oleomarga- 
rine is  made  in  his  State,  he  has  conceived  a  great  affection  for  the 
kind  of  oleomargarine  that  is  an  exact  counterfeit  of  butter,  forbidden 
by  New  York,  and  which  defrauds  the  public  everywhere,  and  the 
only  kind  we  are  seeking  to  suppress. 

"Wadsworth's  friends  in  Congress  were  amazed  at  his  attitude  in 
this  matter.  His  conduct  was  unprecedented.  No  Congressman 
representing  a  Northern  agricultural  district  has  ever  been  known  to 
take  such  an  aggressive  stand  against  the  farmers  of  his  district  in 
face  of  such  floods  of  petitions,  and  no  support  whatever  from  his  own 
people  in  his  position. 

"Wadsworth,  with  his  bill,  is  the  most  dangerous  enemy  the  dairy- 
men have  in  the  world.  As  chairman  of  the  Agricultural  Committee 
he  has  certain  prestige.  If  he  is  returned  to  Congress  by  the  votes 
of  the  farmers  of  his  district,  thereby  winning  their  approval  of  his 
course,  it  will  be  bad  for  us.  His  reelection,  unless  with  a  greatly 
reduced  majority,  will  be  a  victory  for  the  stock  yards  and  oleomarga- 
rine fraud  of  Chicago,  and  a  death  knell  to  the  farmer's  influence  in 
Congress. 

"The  National  Dahy  Union,  however,  is  not  in  politics,  and  its 
officers  happen  to  be  of  the  same  political  faith  as  Wadsworth.  Our 
organization  is  merely  for  the  purpose  of  urging  measures  in  protec- 
tion of  the  farmer  who  keeps  cows,  and  furnishing  information  to  them 
regarding  the  records  of  Congressmen  upon  such  measures. 

"Kespectfully,  yours,  ..^  y  KNIGHT5 

"Secretary  National  Dairy  Union" 

The  result  of  that  election  is  a  very  emphatic  protest  against  the 
methods  used  to  defeat  him.  He  succeeded  in  being  reelected  at  this 
time  by  an  increased  majority  of  over  3,000  above  the  vote  he  received 
two  years  ago,  and  had  8,000  majority  in  his  district  to  return  him  to 
the  next  Congress. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Judge  Springer,  do  you  know  how  far  he  ran  behind 
his  ticket? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  He  got  votes  enough,  however,  to  give  him  a  majority 
of  about  9,000  in  his  district. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  The  official  returns  of  the  State  of  New  York  have 
not  been  printed,  but  the  returns  in  the  agricultural  papers  in  the  State 
of  New  York  show  that  he  ran  2,000  behind.  I  will  not  state  this  as 
a  positive  fact,  because  the  official  returns  are  riot  in,  but  that  is  the 
statement  made  and  the  general  understanding  among  the  people. 

Mr.   SPRINGER.  There   were  various  circulars  sent  abroad  in  his 


OLEOMARGARINE.  85 

district  having  as  their  object  his  defeat  for  the  reason  that  he  exer- 
cised his  judgment  upon  this  measure  and  used  his  influence  to  secure 
the  passage  of  another  bill,  to  which  I  call  the  attention  of  this  com- 
mittee, and  which  I  believe  will  meet  every  objection  that  has  really 
any  foundation  in  it. 

I  desire  to  discuss  this  bill  on  its  merits.  I  concede  to  every  Senator 
and  Representative  in  Congress  the  right  to  an  honest  difference  of 
opinion  with  other  Senators  and  Members.  The  constituents  of  Sena- 
tors and  Members  of  the  House  will  recognize  the  right  of  their 
representatives  to  express  their  honest  convictions,  and  all  efforts  to 
threaten  Senators  and  Members  of  the  House  with  popular  condemna- 
tion should  be  reprobated. 

The  Committee  on  Manufactures  of  the  Senate  has  recently  investi- 
gated the  subject  of  the  adulteration  of  food  products.  It  has  submitted 
an  able  report  on  the  subject,  accompanied  with  all  the  testimony. 
The  report  is  known  as  Senate  Report  No.  516,  first  session  Fifty-sixth 
Congress,  and  was  submitted  to  the  Senate  on  February  28,  1900. 

I  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  conclusions  reached  by 
the  Committee  on  Manufactures  of  the  Senate  at  this  very  Congress. 
That  part  of  the  report  on  this  subject  will  be  found  printed  on  pages 
7  to  9,  and  is  as  follows: 

"In  regard  to  butterine  or  oleomargarine  it  is  not  claimed  by  any  of 
the  witnesses  before  your  committee  that  it  is  in  any  way  deleterious 
to  public  health.  On  the  contrary  all  expert  evidence  upon  this  point 
strongly  confirms  the  testimony  of  the  manufacturers  of  this  article, 
to  the  effect  that  it  is  a  healthful  food  product.  The  testimony  shows 
that  this  product  is  the  result  of  a  combination  of  beef  and  pork  fats, 
butter,  cream,  and  milk  with  coloring  matter,  which  is  similar  to  that 
universally  used  by  farmers  and  dairies  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of 
butter  for  the  coloring  of  that  product.  As  under  the  resolution 
under  which  this  committee  is  operating  it  is  made  one  of  its  duties  to 
investigate  food  products  and  to  ascertain  what  is  sold  that  is  deleteri- 
ous to  the  public  health,  your  committee  made  every  effort  to  obtain 
information  upon  this  branch  of  the  subject,  and  in  addition  to  oral 
testimony  there  were  submitted  authorities  of  an  expert  character,  as 
follows : 

" Henry  Morton,  Stevens  Institute  Technology,  New  Jersey: 

'  'It  contains  nothing  whatever  which  is  injurious  as  an  article  of  diet;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  is  essentially  identical  with  the  best  fresh  butter.' 

"  S.  C.  Caldwell ,  chemical  laboratory,  Cornell  University :  '  Possesses 
no  qualities  whatever  that  can  make  it  the  least  degree  unwholesome.' 

"  Charles  P.  Williams,  analytical  chemist,  Philadelphia:  '  It  is  a  pure 
and  wholesome  article  of  food,  and  in  this  respect,  as  in  respect  to  its 
chemical  composition,  is  fully  the  equivalent  of  the  best  dairy  butter.' 

"Henry  A.  Mott,  analytical  chemist,  New  York:  'Essentially  iden- 
tical with  butter  made  from  cream,  and  perfectly  pure  and  wholesome 
article.' 

"  J.  S.  W.  Arnold,  medical  department,  University  New  York:  'A 
blessing  for  the  public,  and  in  every  way  a  perfectly  pure,  wholesome, 
and  palatable  article  of  food.' 

''  W.  O.  Atwater,  Wesleyan  University,  Connecticut:  '  It  is  perfectly 
wholesome  and  healthy,  and  has  a  high  and  nutritious  value.' 

"Scientific  American:  '  Oleomargarine  is  as  much  a  farm  product  as 
beef  or  butter,  and  is  as  wholesome  as  either.5 


86  OLEOMARGAKLNE. 

"Prof.  Charles  F.  Chandler,  New  York  City:  ' The  product  is  palat- 
able and  wholesome,  and  I  regard  it  as  a  most  valuable  article  of  food.' 

"Prof.  George  F.  Barker,  University  of  Pennsylvania:  'It  is  per- 
fectly wholesome,  and  is  desirable  as  an  article  of  food.' 

"  It  has  been  claimed  by  some  that  the  coloring  matter  alluded  to  is 
a  by-product  of  coal  tar,  and  that  if  taken  into  the  human  stomach  it 
might  be  dangerous  to  health;  but,  upon  the  evidence  taken  before 
your  committee,  there  appears  to  be  no  foundation  for  prohibiting  its 
use  in  the  manufacture  either  of  butter  or  oleomargarine. 

"As  to  the  right  of  manufacturers  to  color  their  oleomargarine,  it 
would  appear  from  the  tenor  of  late  decisions  in  United  States  and 
States  courts  that  the  legislative  branch  would  exceed  its  power  by 
prohibiting  the  use  of  such  coloring  matter  in  the  manufacture  of 
either  butter  or  oleomargarine,  and  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee 
such  legislation  would  be  void,  for  lack  of  uniformity  were  permission 
granted  to  use  coloring  matter  in  one  of  these  products  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  its  use  in  the  other. 

"There  have  been  several  recent  decisions  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  the  most  prominent  being  the  case  of  Schollen- 
berger  v.  The  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  in  which  it  is  held  that 
oleomargarine  has  been  recognized  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century 
in  Europe  and  the  United  States  as  an  article  of  food  and  commerce, 
and  has  been  so  recognized  by  acts  of  Congress.  The  court  refers  to 
the  act  of  August  2,  1886  (24  Stat.,  209),  4An  act  defining  butter, 
also  imposing  a  tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale,  impor- 
tation, and  exportation  of  oleomargarine.'  One  description  of  oleo- 
margarine contained  in  this  act  includes,  'all  mixtures  and  compounds 
of  tallow,  beef  fat,  suet,  lard,  lard  oil,  vegetable  oil,  annatto  and  other 
coloring  matter,  intestinal  fat,  and  offal  fat  made  in  imitation  of  butter.' 
The  decision  in  the  Schollenberger  case  holds,  c  that  the  manufacture 
of  oleomargarine  by  the  compounding  of  the  ingredients  named  in 
this  quotation  from  the  act  of  August  2,  1886,  is  recognized  by  Con- 
gress as  being  a  lawful  business  and  that  the  oleomargarine  so  produced 
is  a  lawful  article  of  commerce. ' 

"It  was  claimed  by  some  of  the  witnesses  before  your  committee 
that  the  present  laws  are  inadequate  to  carry  out  the  original  intention 
of  legislatures,  and  that  under  the  operation  of  the  various  laws  regu- 
lating the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  it  is  sometimes  sold 
to  consumers  as  butter.  Some  of  the  witnesses  who  testified  before 
your  committee  stated  '  that  having  asked  for  butter,  there  were  occa- 
sions when  oleomargarine  had  been  given  them  instead  of  the  former 
article.'  The  examination  of  the  retailers  of  oleomargarine  and  butter 
who  came  before  your  committee  tends  to  show  that  consumers  of 
these  articles  know  which  of  these  products  they  are  purchasing,  but 
in  many  instances  do  not  wish  it  known  that  they  are  using  oleomarga- 
rine, and  it  is  the  testimony  of  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  before 
3Tour  committee  that  there  is  no  instance  of  any  consumer  having  ever 
brought  action  to  prosecute  dealers  for  having  sold  them  oleomargarine 
instead  of  butter.  This  testimony  has  not  been  contradicted,  nor  has 
any  proof  of  its  accuracy  been  offered. 

"There  has  been  much  evidence  and  argument  before  your  com- 
mittee as  to  whether  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  is  detrimental 
to  the  interests  of  the  farmers  of  the  country.  The  evidence  shows, 
however,  that  all  of  the  ingredients  entering  into  the  composition  of 
both  butter  and  oleomargarine  are  the  products  of  our  farms,  with  the 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


87 


possible  exception  of  the  coloring  matter,  the  use  of  which  is  infini- 
tesimal in  both  cases. 

"The  resolution  under  which  this  committee  was  appointed  does  not 
authorize  investigation  except: 

4 '  First.  What  food  is  sold  that  is  deleterious  to  the  public  health ;  and, 

"Second.  What  food  is  sold  in  fraud  to  the  consumer. 

"The  committee  finds  from  the  evidence  before  it  that  the  product 
known  commercially  as  oleomargarine  is  healthful  and  nutritious,  and 
that  no  additional  legislation  is  necessary." 

There  is  no  minority  report  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  upon 
the  pure-food  bill,  so  called. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Judge  Springer,  may  I  interrupt  you  for  a  moment? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Senator  Hansbrough  will  probably  recall  the  fact  that 
Senator  Mason  made  a  statement  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  toward  the 
latter  part  of  the  last  session  that  subsequent  developments  have  con- 
vinced him  that  he  was  mistaken  in  the  premises.  That  is  now  a  mat- 
ter of  record  in  the  Congressional  Record.  He  said  it  had  developed 
that  there  was  a  great  deal  of  fraud  in  oleomargarine  that  he  did  not 
know  about,  and  he  had  changed  his  conclusions  as  to  that  matter. 
That  you  will  find  in  the  Congressional  Record,  and  I  will  attempt  to 
look  it  up. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Senator  Mason  is  a  Senator,  and  when  this  matter 
comes  before  the  Senate  he  will  have  an  opportunity  of  stating  whether 
he  retracts  any  part  of  the  official  report  he  has  made,  and  it  will^rest 
on  his  statement. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  simply  desire  to  call  attention  to  that  fact. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  have  collected  some  statistics  in  .reference  to  oleo- 
margarine, which  will  be  of  interest  to  the  committee  and  to  all  others 
who  desire  to  be  thoroughly  imformed  on  the  subject. 

PRODUCTION    OF   OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  30, 1900,  shows  that  the  production  of  oleomargarine 
for  that  year  was  107,045,028  pounds,  and  that  the  tax  of  2  cents  a 
pound  paid  to  the  Government  thereon  amounted  to  $2,543,785.18. 

The  following  table  of  production  and  total  receipts  from  all  oleo- 
margarine sources  for  each  fiscal  year  since  November  1, 1886,  the  date 
the  oleomargarine  law  took  efi'ect,  is  interesting  as  showing  the  extent 
of  operations  in  the  country: 


Total  produc- 
tion. 

Amount  re- 
ceived. 

On  hand  November  1,  1886.  .                                                                   

Pounds. 
181,  090 

During  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30— 
1887  (from  November  1,  1886)             

21,  513,  537 

$723  948  04 

34  325  527 

864  139  88 

1889 

35  664  026 

894  247  91 

1890  .  . 

32  324  032 

•    786'  291  72 

1891 

44  392  409 

1  077  924  14 

1892  .... 

48  364  155 

1  266  326  00 

1893. 

67  224  298 

1  670  643  50 

1894  .  .  . 

69*622  246 

l'723  479.90 

1895  .  . 

56  958  105 

1  409  211  18 

1896 

50  853  934 

1  219  432  46 

1897  

45  531  207 

1  034  129  60 

1898 

57  516  136 

1  315  708  54 

1899  

83  130  474 

1  956  618.56 

1900  

107  045  028 

2  543  785  18 

Total  

754  645  504 

18  485  886.61 

88 


OLEOMAKGAKINE. 


THE   INGREDIENTS   OF   OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  House  of  Representatives  at  its  last  session  called  upon  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  for  information  as  to  the  kind  of  material  used 
in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United  States,  the  amount 
of  each  ingredient,  and  the  per  cent  that  each  bears  to  the  total  amount 
of  oleomargarine  produced  in  the  country  for  the  period  named.  In 
response  to  this  resolution  the  Secretary,  through  the  Commissioner 
of  Internal  Revenue,  on  May  14,  1900,  furnished  the  following  state- 
ment : 

Quantities  and  kinds  of  ingredients  used  in  the  production  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United 
States  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1899;  also  the  percentage  each  ingredient  bears 
to  the  whole  quantity. 


Material. 

Pounds. 

Percent- 
age each 
ingredient 
bears  to 
the  whole. 

Neutral  lard       ...             . 

31  297  251 

34  27 

Oleo  oil  

24,  491,  769 

26.  82 

Cotton-seed  oil 

4,357  514 

4  77 

Sesame 

486  310 

53 

Coloring  matter  ...                             .         .    .                         

148,  970 

.16 

Sugar 

110  164 

12 

Glycerin  

8,963 

.01 

Stearin 

5,890 

007 

Glucose  ... 

2,550 

.003 

Milk  

14,  200,  576 

15  55 

Salt 

6  773  670 

7  42 

Butter  oil  

4,342,904 

4.76 

Butter  .. 

1,568  319 

1  72 

Cream 

3  527  410 

3  86 

Total 

91  322  260 

100 

Or,  more  definitely  stated,  the  quantity,  character,  and  value  of 
ingredients  used  in  the  production  of  oleomargarine  for  the  time  speci- 
fied above  are  as  follows: 


Material. 

Pounds. 

Value 
per 
pound. 

Total  value. 

Neutral  lard... 

31,297,251 

Cents. 
8 

$2,  503,  780.  08 

Oleo  oil 

24  491  769 

9 

2  144  917  69 

Cotton-seed  oil  . 

8  700  418 

6 

522,  025.  08 

Sesame  oil 

486  310 

10 

4  863  10 

Coloring  matter  

148  970 

20 

29,  290.  00 

Sugar  

100  164 

4 

4  406  50 

Glycerin  .. 

8  963 

10 

896  30 

Stearin  

5  890 

8 

459  60 

Glucose.  . 

2  550 

3 

76  50 

Milk  

14,250,576 

142,005  7(5 

Salt  

6  772  670 

•t 

67,726  70 

Butter  

1  568  319 

20 

313  663  80 

Cream  

3  527  410 

5 

176  370  50 

Butter  oil  

4  342  000 

6 

960  5°0  0(1 

Average  value  per  pound  of  materials,  7.09  cents. 

Average  cost  of  packages  (extreme),  one-half  cent  per  pound. 


Highest  possible  cost  all  expenses  connected  with  manufacturing,  1  cent  per  pound. 
Internal-revenue  tax,  per  pound,  2  cents. 

Tptal  cost  to  manufacturer  of  finished  product,  average,  10.59  cents. 

Finished  product  quoted  at  from  11£  cents  for  lowest  grade  to  18  cents  for  highest  quality,  averag- 
ing, probably,  14  cents  per  pound. 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


STATES    WHICH     HAVE     PROHIBITED     OLEOMARGARINE     AND     THEIR 
POPULATION,  1890   AND   1900. 

I  have  obtained  from  the  Director  of  the  Census  a  statement  of  the 
population  of  the  United  States  for  the  census  years  1890  and  1900. 
The  statement  is  as  follows: 

[States  marked  with  a  dash  (thus,  — Alabama)  are  those  in  which 
kws  have  been  passed  forbidding  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in 
.semblance  of  butter.] 

Population  of  the  United  States  by  States  and  Territories,  1890  and  1900. 


States  and  Territories. 

1900. 

1890. 

Indians  not 
taxed,  1900. 

The  United  States 

a  76  304,799 

63  069  756 

134  158 

STATES. 

—  Alabama  

1,828,697 

1,513,017 

Arkansas 

1,311  564 

1,  128,  179 

—  California                                                                    

1,485,053 

1,  208,  130 

1  549 

—  Colorado 

539  700 

412,  198 

597 

—  Connecticut  .                                                         

908,355 

746,  258 

Delaware 

184  735 

168,  493 

Florida.    .                                                      

528,  542 

391.  422 

—Georgia 

2,216  331 

1,837,353 

Idaho                                                                      

161,  772 

84,385 

2,297 

—Illinois 

4,821  550 

3,826  351 

Indiana               .                                                      

2,  516,  462 

2,  192,  404 

Iowa 

2,231  853 

1,  911,  896 

Kansas  .           .      .                                              

1,  470,  495 

1,427,096 

Kentucky 

2,147  174 

1,  858,  635 

Louisiana                                           

1,381,625 

1,  118,  587 

vlaine 

694  466 

661  086 

-Maryland                                                      

1,  190,  050 

1,042,390 

Massachusetts 

2,805  346 

2  238  943 

—  Michigan                                                  

2,  420,  982 

2,  093,  889 

Minnesota 

1,751  394 

1  301  826 

1  768 

Mississippi                                         .        

1,551,270 

1,289,600 

Missouri 

3,106  665 

2,679  184 

Montana  .                                         

243,  329 

132,  159 

10  746 

—  Nebraska 

1,068  539 

1,058  910 

Nevada.  ..                                      .        

42,335 

45,  761 

1,665 

—  New  Hampshire 

411,588 

376  530 

—  New  Jersey                                                   

1,883,669 

1,444,933 

—  \i'\v  York 

7,268  012 

5  997  853 

4  711 

North  Carolina                              

1,  893,  810 

1,  617,  947 

—  North  Dakota 

319  146 

182  719 

4  692 

—Ohio                                                             

4,  157,  545 

3,  672,  316 

—  Oregon 

413  536 

313  767 

—  Pennsylvania                                                                     

6,  302,  115 

5,  258,  014 

Rhode  Island 

428  556 

345  506 

—  South  Carolina                                   

1,  340,  316 

1,151,149 

—  South  Dakota 

401  570 

328,  808 

10  932 

—  Tennessee                                           

2,  020,  616 

1,  767,  518 

Texas 

3,  048,  710 

2  235  523 

—Utah  .            ..  ..                                    

276,  749 

207,  905 

1,472 

—  Vermont 

343,  641 

332,  422 

—  Virginia                                      .  .             

1,854,184 

1,655,980 

—  Wa  <  h  ington 

518,  103 

349  390 

2,531 

—  We^t  Virginia 

958  800 

762  794 

—  Wisconsin 

2,  069,  042 

1,686  880 

1,657 

Wyoming... 

92.531 

60,  705 

Total  for  45  States 


74,610,523       6-2,116,811 


44, 617 


TERRITORIES. 

Alaska  

63,441 

32,  052 

Arizona  

122,  931 

59,  620 

24,644 

District  of  Columbia 

278,  718 

230,  392 

Hawaii 

154  001 

89  990 

Indian  Territory 

391,  960 

180,  182 

56,033 

New  Mexico 

195  310 

153  593 

2  937 

Oklahoma  .           

398,  245 

61,834 

5,927 

Total  for  7  Territories               

1,604,606 

807,  663 

89,  Ml 

Persons  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  stationed  abroad 

*89  670 

Indians,  etc.  ,  on  Indian  reservations,  except  Indian  Territory. 

145,  282 

76,  304,  799 

1  Including  an  estimated  population  of  14,400  for  certain  military  organizations  and  naval  vessels 
stationed  abroad,  principally  in  the  Philippines  for  which  the  returns  have  not  yet  been  received. 


90 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


According  to  the  population  of  1890  the  States  which  have  prohibited 
the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  contained  a  population  of  50,117,440, 
while  the  States  and  Territories  whose  laws  permit  such  sale,  merely 
requiring  that  the  oleomargarine  be  branded,  marked,  or  labeled  so  as 
to  distinguish  it,  contained  a  population  of  only  12,604,790.  The  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  with  230,392  population  in  1890,  is  embraced  in  the 
latter  list. 

According  to  the  population  of  1900  the  States  which  have  prohibited 
the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  contained  a  population  of  about 
60,000,000,  while  the  thirteen  other  States  contained  a  population  of 
14,671,001. 

QUANTITY   CONSUMED   IN   EACH   STATE. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  furnished  a  statement  of  the  quan- 
tity of  oleomargarine  shipped  into  the  several  States  and  Territories, 
and  probably  consumed  therein,  during  the  tiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1899.  A  table  showing  similar  information  for  the  }^ear  ending  June 
30,  1900,  could  not  be  prepared  in  time  to  be  of  use  to  this  committee 
during  the  consideration  of  the  pending  bill. 

I  have  marked  a  dash  before  the  States  in  which  laws  have  been 
passed  prohibiting  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of 
butter.  The  number  of  the  dealers  in  each  State  is  given,  and  the  per- 
centage of  the  whole  product  consumed  in  each  State.  The  table  is  as 
follows: 

Quantity  of  oleomargarine  shipped  into  each  State  for  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1899. 


State  or  Territory. 

No.  of 
deal- 
ers. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

State  or  Territory. 

No.  of 
deal- 
ers. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent 
of  total. 

—Alabama  

21 

226,  053 

0.28+ 

—  Nebraska  

73 

1,  024,  985 

1.29- 

Alaska 

5 

18  080 

.02+ 

New  Hampshire 

19 

455  583 

57+ 

Arkansas  

35 

380,  389 

.48- 

—  New  Jersey  

296 

5,  875,  975 

7.37+ 

Arizona  .  .  . 

5 

78,  767 

.10— 

New  Mexico 

12 

115  850 

15 

—California  

74,  923 

.09+ 

—  New  York  

14 

222,  788 

.28— 

—  Colorado  

55 

1,123,537 

1.41  — 

Nevada 

625 

.00+ 

—  Connecticut  
—  Delaware  

5 

48 

134,255 
40,  475 

.17- 

.05+ 

North  Carolina  .  . 
—  North  Dakota  . 

9 

18 

110,244 
7,710 

.14- 
.01— 

Dist.  Columbia 

61 

816,  848 

1  02+ 

—  Ohio 

1,005 

8  830  969 

11  08+ 

Florida 

82 

590  225 

74+ 

Oklahoma 

10 

117  398 

15 

—  Georgia  

61 

495.004 

.62+ 

—  Oregon 

3 

41,250 

.05+ 

Illinois 

2  020 

18  638  921 

23  39 

717 

11  433  341 

14  35 

Idaho  

3 

58,224 

.07+ 

Rhode  Island  

333 

3,  594,  984 

4.51  + 

Indiana 

306 

3,923  228 

4  92+ 

—  South  Carolina 

24 

258,159 

.32+ 

Indian  Territory  .  . 
—  Iowa  

21 
3 

152,278 
79,922 

.19+ 
.10+ 

—  South  Dakota  
—  Tennessee  

4 
83 

55,432 
714,  640 

.07- 
.90— 

Kansas 

186 

1  658  544 

2  08+ 

Texas 

162 

1  518  264 

1  91 

—  Kentucky  

217 

1,490,577 

1.87+ 

—  Utah  

8,450 

.01+ 

Louisiana 

140 

1,043  502 

1.31 

—  Vermont 

1 

2,990 

.00+ 

—Maine  

17 

102,  274 

.13— 

—  Virginia  

121 

1,159,400 

1.45+ 

—  Maryland.        .     . 

58 

1,791  950 

2.25- 

—  Washington  

5 

63,345 

.08— 

—  Massachusetts  
Michigan  

108 
109 

2,083,889 
2,  092,  521 

2.61+ 
2.63- 

—  West  Virginia... 
—  Wisconsin  

172 
23 

1,206,865 
714,  742 

1.51+ 
.90- 

—  Minnesota 

30 

1,343  865 

1  69- 

Wyoming  

5 

39,547 

05— 

231 

3  133  313 

3  93  + 

Mississippi  

17 

104,622 

.13+ 

Total  

79,  695,  744 

100.00 

Montana  . 

446  022 

56- 

The  information  contained  in  this  statement  is  valuable  and  instruct- 
ive. It  shows  the  effect  upon  the  consumption  of  oleomargarine  which 
is  produced  by  State  legislation.  In  Rhode  Island,  having  a  population 
of  428,556  by  the  census  of  1900,  the  consumption  of  oleomargarine 
for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1899,  was  3,594,984  pounds.  This 
amounted  to  over  8  pounds  per  capita. 


OLEOMAKGARINE.  91 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  the}7  a  State  law  in  Rhode  Island  pro- 
hibiting it? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No,  sir;  in  that  State  it  is  allowed  to  be  sold,  desig- 
nated as  oleomargarine,  with  proper  marks  and  brands.  A  gentleman 
who  addressed  the  committee  the  other  day  explained  how  it  was — 
that  there  was  a  sign  up  in  the  windows  of  every  store  stating  that 
oleomargarine  was  sold  there,  and  that  its  sale  as  such  was  understood. 

In  Vermont,  having  a  population  of  343,641,  the  consumption  was 
only  2,990  pounds,  or  practically  nothing.  The  principal  reason  for 
this  difference  in  consumption  is  that  in  Rhode  Island  the  sale  of 
oleomargine,  colored  in  imitation  of  butter,  is  permitted  if  marked  and 
branded  as  such.  In  Vermont  oleomargarine,  colored  in  imitation  of 
yellow  butter,  is  prohibited,  and  when  sold  at  all  it  must  be  colored 
pink. 

In  Illinois,  where  there  is  hostile  legislation,  yet  there  were  con- 
sumed in  the  State  during  the  year  1899  over  18,000,000  pounds. 
But  the  courts  were  generally  opposed  to  the  enforcement  of  the 
law,  and  it  was  practically  ignored.  The  production  in  that  State 
for  that  year  amounted  to  over  38,000,000  pounds.  But  in  New  York, 
where  there  is  strongly  repressive  legislation,  and  where  we  may 
assume  from  the  result  produced  the  law  was  fairly  well  executed,  the 
consumption  amounted  to  only  222,788  pounds.  The  population  of 
the  State  is  over  7,000,000.  The  consumption  is  well-nigh  completely 
suppressed.  If  the  laws  of  New  York  had  been  the  same  as  those  of 
Rhode  Island,  the  consumption  might  have  reached  8  pounds  per 
capita,  or  56,000,000  pounds. 

The  total  production  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United  States  for  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1900,  was  107,045,028  pounds.  This  was  a  con- 
sumption of  only  1.4  pounds  per  capita.  Without  repressive  laws 
in  any  of  the  States  the  consumption  might  have  been  as  great  per 
capita  as  in  Rhode  Island.  This  would  have  increased  the  demand 
for  oleomargarine  for  consumption  in  the  United  States  per  annum  to 
over  600,000,000  pounds.  It  is  not  surprising,  in  view  of  these  facts, 
that  the  friends  of  the  pending  bill  desire  the  enactment  of  the  first 
section,  which  will  place  oleomargarine  under  the  repressive  laws  of  32 
States  in  the  Union,  with  a  fair  prospect  of  securing  equally  oppressive 
legislation  in  the  remaining  13  States. 

The  apprehension  of  the  dairymen  of  the  United  States  that  their 
industry  will  be  seriously  injured  by  the  production  and  consumption 
of  oleomargarine  is  not  well  founded.  It  is  stated  in  the  minority 
report  of  the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture  on  the  pending  bill 
that  the  production  of  butter  in  the  United  States  at  this  time  amounts 
to  about  2,000,000,000  pounds  per  annum,  and  that  the  production  of 
oleomargarine  is  but  little  over  4  per  cent  of  that  of  butter.  This  does 
not  threaten  serious  competition.  A  possible  consumption  in  the 
United  States  of  8  pounds  per  capita,  as  in  Rhode  Island,  would  not 
seriously  injure  the  butter  industry,  for  the  reason  that  the  consump- 
tion of  oleomargarine  would  be  confined  in  the  main,  under  proper 
regulations,  to  those  who  do  not  use  butter,  by  reason  of  its  high  price. 
Greater  comforts  would  be  possible  with  no  perceptible  injury  to  any 
class  of  our  people. 

But  even  if  butter  should  be  brought  into  sharp  competition  with 
oleomargarine  sold  under  proper  regulations,  the  producers  of  milk  and 
of  dairy  and  creamery  butter  have  no  right  to  complain.  Every  ingre- 


92  OLEOMARGARINE. 

dient  of  oleomargarine  is  the  product  of  our  farms  and  ranches.  Those 
who  produce  the  ingredients  of  oleomargarine  are  just  as  much  entitled 
to  a-  fair  field  and  open  competition  as  are  those  who  produce  milk  and 
butter.  The  consumers  of  the  country  are  entitled  to  the  best  that  the 
country  affords  and  at  the  most  reasonable  prices  that  home  competi- 
tion in  production  can  afford.  The  opposition  to  oleomargarine  is  as 
unreasonable  as  is  that  to  improved  processes  of  production  and  to 
labor-saving  machinery.  The  time  has  long  since  passed  when  the 
machine  must  be  destroyed  because  it  saves  labor  and  cheapens  pro- 
duction. If  American  genius  can  invent  some  means  of  producing 
butter  or  any  other  article  of  consumption  which  will  add  to  human 
comfort  and  happiness,  such  article  is  entitled  to  equal  rights  before 
the  law  with  all  other  articles  of  like  character,  even  if  the  old  is  driven 
out  of  the  market  and  the  new  material  entirely  supplants  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Judge,  is  not  that  what  would  happen  to 
the  American  cow?  If  she  became  more  valuable  for  oleomargarine 
than  for  butter,  would  she  not  be  driven  out? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  that  is  possible;  but  she  would  go  to  the 
slaughterhouse,  where  she  would  oe  utilized  to  very  great  benefit  in 
feeding  the  hungry  people  of  the  world.  A  gentleman  who  addressed 
the  committee  a  few  days  ago  stated  that  all  cows  were  sent  to  the 
block  sooner  or  later. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  would  not  the  oleomargarine  people 
be  required  to  discover  some  new  method  of  producing  calves? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  An  incubator  might  be  used. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  An  incubator  process  might  be  invented,  as  sug- 
gested by  the  Senator  from  Idaho.  But  if  the  honorable  chairman  will 
consult  those  gentlemen  whom  I  have  the  honor  to  represent  here,  on 
their  ranches  upon  the  vast  prairies  of  the  West,  he  will  find  that  most 
of  the  calves  which  mature  into  beef  cattle  are  produced  by  the  cows 
on  the  ranches  which  are  not  used  for  dairy  purposes. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Judge,  are  you  not  surprised  that  a  farmer  from 
North  Dakota  does  not  know  that  dairy  cows  are  not  those  that  produce 
the  calves — that  it  is  the  range  cows  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  The  range  cows  are  those  that  produce  most  of  them. 
All  calves  from  dairy  cows  as  a  cule  are  sent  to  slaughter  as  soon  as 
they  are  old  enough  to  be  of  value  as  veal. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  supposed  it  was  necessary  for  a  cow  to 
become  a  calf  producer  before  producing  milk. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  That  is  true,  but  most  of  the  dairy  calves,  per- 
haps three-fourths  of  them,  go  right  to  the  slaughterhouse. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Those  that  we  rely  on  to  produce  beeves  are  raised 
on  ranches,  and  the  cows  are  not  used  as  milch  cows.  But,  however 
this  may  be,  I  reassert  what  I  stated  before,  that  the  law-making 
power  can  not  interfere  with  the  industries  of  the  country  so  as  to 
strike  one  down  and  build  up  another  merely  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  one  of  them  is  getting  the  advantage  of  the  other  by  adopting 
improved  processes  of  production  so  as  to  cheapen  the  price  of  the 
product  to  the  consumer.  That  doctrine  has  long  since  been  exploded, 
and  it  never  will  reappear  again,  I  hope,  in  this  country.  If  you  want 
to  see  the  fulfillment  of  the  doctrine  of  repressive  legislation  to  pre- 
vent improved  processes  go  to  China,  and  you  will  find  a  country  that 
regards  the  machine  as  the  enemy  of  labor. 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


93 


THE    LAW    OF    THE    CASE. 

I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  law  of  this  case, 
and  1  trust  that  I  shall  not  weary  your  patience  on  a  subject  so  impor- 
tant as  that. 

I  have  been  engaged  during  the  past  five  years  in  interpreting  the 
laws  of  my  country  and  in  enforcing  them,  and  having  occupied  the 
position  of  a  judge  I  realize  more  fully  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  persons 
to  look  to  the  law,  and,  when  the  law  points  out  the  course,  to  follow 
it.  So  I  shall  ask  this  committee  to  follow  the  law  as  announced  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Two  recent  opinions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in 
reference  to  oleomargarine  are  of  the  highest  importance  in  consider- 
ing the  pending  bill.  To  these  opinions  I  will  ask  the  committee  to 
give  special  consideration. 

The  first  opinion  was  handed  down  in  the  case  of  Plumley  v.  Massa- 
chusetts, in  1894.  The  second  opinion  was  handed  down  in  1898,  and 
was  in  the  case  of  Schollenberger  v.  Pennsylvania.  The  opinions  were 
given  upon  the  oleomargarine  laws  of  the  States  of  Massachusetts  and 
Pennsylvania.  The  sections  of  those  laws  which  were  construed  by 
the  Supreme  Court  are  as  follows: 

THE    MASSACHUSETTS   AND   PENNSYLVANIA    STATUTES   COMPARED. 


Massachusetts  oleomargarine  statute  of 
March  10,  1891,  which  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  held  to  be 
valid,  in  Plumley  v.  Massachusetts, 
155  U.  S. ,  461-482.  Decided  December 
10,  1894. 

SEC.  1.  "No  person,  by  himself 
or  his  agents  or  servants,  shall 
render  or  manufacture,  sell,  offer 
for  sale,  expose  for  sale,  or  have 
in  his  possession  with  intent  to  sell, 
any  article,  product,  or  compound 
made  wholly  or  partly  out  of  any 
fat,  oil,  or  oleaginous  substance,  or 
compound  thereof,  not  produced 
from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream 
from  the  same,  which  shall  be  in 
imitation  of  yellow  butter  pro- 
duced from  pure  unadulterated 
milk  or  cream  from  the  same: 
Provided,  That  nothing  in  this  act 
shall  be  construed  to  prohibit  the 
manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomarga- 
rine in  a  separate  and  distinct 
form,  and  in  such  manner  as  will 
advise  the  consumer  of  its  real 
character,  free  from  coloration  or 
ingredient  that  causes  it  to  look 
like  butter." 


Pennsylvania  oleomargarine  statute  of 
May  21, 1885,  which  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  held  to  be  invalid,  to 
the  extent  that  it  prohibits  the  intro- 
duction of  oleomargarine  from  another 
State  and  its  sale  in  the  original  pack- 
age, in  Schollenberger  r.  Pennsylvania, 
171  U.  S. ,  1-30.  Decided  May  26, 1878. 

"No  person,  firm,  or  corporate 
body  shall  manufacture  out  of  any 
oleaginous  substance,  or  any  com- 
pound of  the  same,  other  than 
that  produced  from  unadulterated 
milk  or  cream  from  the  same,  any 
article  designed  to  take  the  place 
of  butter  or  cheese  produced  from 
pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream 
from  the  same,  or  of  any  imita- 
tion or  adulterated  butter  or  cheese, 
nor  shall  sell  or  offer  for  sale,  or 
have  in  his,  her,  or  their  posses- 
sion with  intent  to  sell,  the  same 
as  an  article  of  food." 


94  OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  difference  between  these  two  sections  was  that  in  the  Massa- 
chusetts law  the  phrase  was,  "shall  be  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter 
produced  from  pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from  the  same,"  etc., 
while  in  the  Pennsylvania  law,  which  was  declared  unconstitutional, 
the  language  was,  "Designed  to  take  the  place  of  butter  or  cheese." 

An  examination  of  the  pleadings  in  these  cases  reveals  the  fact  that 
the  oleomargarine  sold  in  each  case  was  in  the  original  package  in 
which  it  was  imported  into  the  State,  and  that  all  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  Congress  of  August  2,  1886,  had  been  complied  with  in  each 
case. 

In  the  Massachusetts  case  it  was  admitted  in  the  pleadings  that  the 
article  sold  was  that  forbidden  b}r  the  statute;  it  was  therefore  made 
in  imitation  of  yellow  butter;  but  that  it  was  marked  and  distinguished 
by  all  the  marks,  words,  and  stamps  required  of  oleomargarine  by  the 
laws  of  Congress  and  those  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts. 

In  the  Pennsylvania  case  it  was  conceded  that  the  oleomargarine 
sold  was  manufactured  out  of  an  oleaginous  substance,  not  produced 
from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream,  and  was  designed  to  take  the  place 
of  butter  as  an  article  of  food;  "  but  the  fact  that  the  article  was  oleo- 
margarine and  not  butter  was  made  known  by  the  defendant  to  the 
purchaser,  and  there  was  no  attempt  or  purpose  on  the  part  of  the 
defendant  to  sell  the  article  as  butter,  or  any  understanding  on  the 
part  of  the  purchaser  that  he  was  buying  anything  but  oleomargarine." 

The  Supreme  Court,  in  its  opinion  in  the  Schollenberger  case,  refer- 
ring to  the  decision  and  opinion  in  the  Plumley  case,  said: 

"This  court  held  that  a  conviction  under  that  (Massachusetts) 
statute  for  having  sold  an  article  known  as  oleomargarine,  not  pro- 
duced from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream,  but  manufactured  in  imita- 
tion of  yellow  butter  produced  from  pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream, 
was  valid.  Attention  was  called  in  the  opinion  to  the  fact  that  the 
statute  did  not  prohibit  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  all  oleomargarine, 
but  only  such  as  was  colored  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  produced 
from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  such  milk.  If  free  from  colora- 
tion or  ingredient  that  caused  it  to  look  like  butter,  the  right  to  sell  it 
in  separate  and  distinct  form  and  in  such  manner  as  would  advise  the 
consumer  of  its  real  character  was  neither  restricted  nor  prohibited. 
The  court  held  that  under  the  statute  the  party  was  only  forbidden  to 
practice  in  such  matters  a  fraud  upon  the  general  public,  that  the 
statute  seeks  to  suppress  false  pretenses  and  to  promote  fair  dealing 
in  the  sale  of  an  article  of  food,  and  that  it  compels  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine for  what  it  really  is  by  preventing  its  sale  for  what  it  is  not." 

The  court  further  held — that  is,  the  court  in  the  Schollenberger 
case — in  reference  to  the  Plumley  case: 

"  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  case  was  based  entirely  upon  the  the- 
ory of  the  right  of  a  State  to  prevent  deception  and  fraud  in  the  sale 
of  any  article,  and  that  it  was  the  fraud  and  deception  contained  in 
selling  the  article  for  what  it  was  not,  and  selling  it  so  that  it  should 
appear  to  be  another  and  a  different  article  that  this  right  of  the  State 
was  upheld.  The  question  of  the  right  to  totally  prohibit  the  intro- 
duction from  another  State  of  the  pure  article  did  not  arise,  and,  of 
course,  was  not  passed  upon." 

The  only  difference  in  the  texts  of  the  two  statutes  in  question  is 
found  in  these  phrases:  In  the  Massachusetts  statute  these  words  are 
used:  '"Any  article  *  *  *  which  shall  be  in  imitation  of  yellow 


OLEOMARGARINE.  95 

butter  produced  from  pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from  the  same." 
In  the  Pennsylvania  statute  these  words  were  used:  "Any  article 
designed  to  take  the  place  of  butter  or  cheese  produced  from  pure  una- 
dulterated milk  or  cream  from  the  same."  Or,  to  narrow  the  distinc- 
tion still  further,  in  one  case  the  words  used  were:  uln  imitation  of 
yellow  butter;"  in  the  other,  "designed  to  take  the  place  of  butter." 

Notwithstanding  this  finely  drawn  distinction  in  the  meaning  of  the 
two  statutes  in  question,  the  entire  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  in 
the  Schollenburger  case  does  substantially  overrule  the  Plumley  case. 
Attention  is  called  to  the  following  quotations  from  the  opinion  of  the 
court  in  the  Schollenburger  case.  I  read  from  volume  171,  of  United 
States  Supreme  Court  Reports.  Mr.  Justice  Peckham  delivered  the 
opinion  of  the  court.  At  the  bottom  of  page  7  and  at  the  top  of  page 
8,  the  court  stated  as  follows: 

"In  the  examination  of  this  subject  the  first  question  to  be  consid- 
ered is  whether  oleomargarine  is  an  article  of  commerce.  No  affirma- 
tive evidence  from  witnesses  called  to  the  stand  and  speaking  directly 
to  that  subject  is  found  in  the  record.  We  must  determine  the 
question  with  reference  to  those  facts  which  are  so  well  and  univer- 
sally known  that  courts  will  take  notice  of  them  without  particular 
proof  being  adduced  in  regard  to  them,  and  also  by  reference  to  those 
dealings  of  the  commercial  world  which  are  of  like  notoriety. 

"Any  legislation  of  Congress  upon  the  subject  must  of  course  be 
regarded  by  this  court  as  a  fact  of  the  first  importance.  If  Congress 
has  affirmatively  pronounced  the  article  to  be  a  proper  subject  of 
commerce,  we  should  rightly  be  influenced  by  that  declaration." 

The  court  then  proceeded  to  show  that  Congress  had  recognized  it 
as  a  legitimate  article  of  commerce.  The  court  then  pointed  out  the 
various  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  August  2,  1886  (26  Stat., 
209),  imposing  a  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound  upon  oleomargarine,  and  con- 
cluded its  synopsis  of  the  act  with  the  following  statement,  on  page  9: 

"This  act  shows  that  Congress  at  the  time  of  its  passage  in  1886 
recognized  the  article  as  a  proper  subject  of  taxation  and  as  one  which 
was  the  subject  of  traffic  and  of  exportation  to  foreign  countries  and 
of  importation  from  such  countries.  Its  manufacture  was  recognized 
as  a  lawful  pursuit,  and  taxation  was  levied  upon  the  manufacturer  of 
the  article,  upon  the  wholesale  and  retail  dealers  therein,  and  also  upon 
the  article  itself." 

The  court  then  referred  to  the  fact  that  oleomargarine  was  well 
known  as  an  article  of  food  and  is  dealt  in  as  such  to  a  large  extent 
throughout  this  country  and  in  Europe.  The  court  quoted,  with 
approval,  the  following  case  and  opinion  thereon: 

"In  Ex  parte  Scott  and  others  the  circuit  court  for  the  eastern  dis- 
trict of  Virginia  (66  Fed.  Rep.,  45),  speaking  by  Hughes,  district 
judge,  said:  '  It  is  a  fact  of  common  knowledge  that  oleomargarine  has 
been  subjected  to  the  severest  scientific  scrutiny  and  has  been  adopted 
by  every  leading  government  in  Europe,  as  well  as  America,  for  use 
by  their  armies  and  navies.  Though  not  originally  invented  by  us,  it 
is  a  gift  of  American  enterprise  and  progressive  invention  to  the 
world.  It  has  become  one  of  the  conspicuous  articles  of  interstate 
commerce  and  furnishes  a  large  income  to  the  General  Government 
annually.  It  is  entering  rapidly  into  domestic  use,  and  the 

trade  in  oleomargarine  has  become  large  and  important.  The  at^en- 
tion  of  the  National  Government  has  been  attracted  to  it  as  a  source 


96  OLEOMARGARINE. 

of  revenue.  Provincial  prejudice  against  this  now  staple  of 

commerce  is  natural,  but  a  city  of  the  size  and  prospects  of  Norfolk 
as  a  world's  entrepot  ought  not  to  be  foremost  in  manifesting  such  a 
prejudice."' 

Summing  up  on  this  branch  of  the  case  the  court  said,  on  page  12: 

"The  article  is  a  subject  of  export,  and  is  largely  used  in  foreign 
countries.  Upon  all  these  facts  we  think  it  apparent  that  oleomarga- 
rine has  become  a  proper  subject  of  commerce  among  the  States  and 
with  foreign  nations. 

"The  general  rule  to  be  deduced  from  the  decisions  of  this  court  is 
that  a  lawful  article  of  commerce  can  not  be  wholly  excluded  from 
importation  into  a  State  from  another  State  where  it  was  manufactured 
or  grown.  A  State  has  power  to  regulate  the  introduction  of  any 
article,  including  a  food  product,  so  as  to  insure  purity  of  the  article 
imported,  but  such  police  power  does  not  include  the  total  exclusion 
even  of  an  article  of  food." 

The  court  then  reviewed  the  previous  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  bearing  on  this  subject.  Referring  to  the  opinion  of  the  court 
in  Railroad  Company  v.  Husen  (95  U.  S.,  465,  469),  the  following 
principle  was  asserted: 

"The  court  said  that  a  State  could  not,  under  the  cover  of  exerting 
its  police  powers,  substantially  prohibit  or  burden  either  foreign  or 
interstate  commerce.  Reasonable  and  appropriate  laws  for  the  inspec- 
tion of  articles,  including  food  products,  were  admitted  to  be  valid; 
but  absolute  prohibition  of  an  unadulterated,  healthy,  and  pure  article 
has  never  been  permitted  as  a  remedy  against  the  importation  of  that 
which  was  adulterated  and  therefore  unhealthy  or  impure. 

»-.»#'*  *  *  * 

"Conceding  the  fact,  we  yet  deny  the  right  of  a  State  to  absolutely 
prohibit  the  introduction  within  its  borders  of  an  article  of  commerce 
which  is  not  adulterated  and  which  in  its  pure  state  is  healthful,  simply 
because  such  an  article  in  the  course  of  its  manufacture  may  be  adul- 
terated by  dishonest  manufacturers  for  purposes  of  fraud  or  illegal 
gains.  The  bad  article  may  be  prohibited,  but  not  the  pure  and 
healthy  one. 

' '  In  the  execution  of  its  police  powers  we  admit  the  right  of  the 
State  to  enact  such  legislation  as  it  may  deem  proper,  even  in  regard  to 
articles  of  interstate  commerce,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  fraud 
or  deception  in  the  sale  of  any  commodity,  and  to  the  extent  that  it 
may  be  fairly  necessary  to  prevent  the  introduction  or  sale  of  an  adul- 
terated article  within  the  limits  of  the  State.  But  in  carrying  out  its 
purposes  the  State  can  not  absolutely  prohibit  the  introduction  within 
the  State  of  an  article  of  commerce  like  pure  oleomargarine.  It  has 
ceased  to  be  what  counsel  for  the  Commonwealth  has  termed  it — a  newly 
discovered  food  product.  An  article  that  has  been  openly  manufac- 
tured for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century,  where  the  ingredients  of  the 
pure  article  are  perfectly  well  known  and  have  been  known  for  a  num- 
ber of  years,  and  where  the  general  process  of  manufacture  has  been 
known  for  an  equal  period,  can  not  truthfully  be  said  to  be  a  newly 
discovered  product  within  the  proper  meaning  of  the  term  as  here 
used. 

*  *  *  *  *  #  # 

"If  properly  and  honestly  manufactured  it  is  conceded  to  be  a 
healthful  arid  nutritious  article  of  food.  The  fact  that  it  may  be 


OLEOMARGAKINE.  97 

adulterated  does  not  afford  a  foundation  to  absolutely  prohibit  its 
introduction  into  the  State.  Although  the  adulterated  article  may 
possibly,  in  some  cases,  be  injurious  to  the  health  of  the  public,  yet 
that  does  not  furnish  a  justification  for  an  absolute  prohibition.  A 
law  which  does  thus  pronibit  the  introduction  of  an  article  like  oleo- 
margarine within  the  State  is  not  a  law  which  regulates  or  restricts 
the  sale  of  articles  deemed  injurious  to  the  health  of  the  community, 
but  is  one  which  prevents  the  introduction  of  a  perfectly  healthful 
commodity  merely  for  the  purpose  of  in  that  way  more  easily  prevent- 
ing an  adulterated  and  possibly  injurious  article  from  being  introduced. 
We  do  not  think  this  is  a  fair  exercise  of  legislative  discretion  when 
applied  to  the  article  in  question." 

At  this  point,  the  hour  of  12  having  arrived,  the  committee  took  a 
recess  until  half  past  2  o'clock,  at  which  time  it  reassembled. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Judge,  you  may  proceed. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  when  the  committee 
took  a  recess  1  was  reviewing  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in 
what  is  known  as  the  Schollenberger  Case.  1  had  quoted  some  of  the 
passages  in  that  opinion  and  there  are  one  or  two  others  to  which  I 
ask}^our  attention.  On  pages  22  and  23  of  the  volume  from  which  I 
was  quoting  (171  U.  S.)  is  this  reference  to  the  very  celebrated  case 
decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  a  few  years  ago,  known  as  the  Original 
Package  Case.  That  case  is  reported  in  135  U.  S.,  page  100,  and  is  the 
case  of  Leisy  v.  Hardin.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
referring  to  that  case,  in  the  Schollenberger  opinion,  says: 

"The  case  of  Leisy  v.  Hardin  (135  U.  S.,  100,  124)  went  a  step 
further  than  the  Bowman  Case  and  held  that  the  importer  had  the 
right  to  sell  in  a  State  into  which  he  brought  the  article  from  another 
State  in  the  original  packages  or  kegs,  unbroken  and  unopened,  not- 
withstanding a  statute  of  the  State  prohibiting  the  sale  of  such  articles 
except  for  the  purposes  therein  named  and  under  a  license  from  the 
State.  Such  a  statute  was  held  to  be  unconstitutional  as  repugnant 
to  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  granting  power  to  Congress  to  regu- 
late commerce  with  foreign  nations  and  among  the  several  States. 
Mr.  Chief  Justice  Fuller,  in  speaking  for  the  court,  said:  4  Under  our 
decision  in  Bowman  v.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway,  they  had 
the  right  to  import  this  beer  into  that  State ;  and  in  the  view  which 
we  have  expressed,  they  had  the  right  to  sell  it,  by  which  act  alone  it 
would  become  mingled  in  the  common  mass  of  property  within  the 
State.  Up  to  that  point  of  time,  we  hold  that  in  the  absence  of  Con- 
gressional permission  to  do  so  the  State  had  no  power  to  interfere, 
by  seizure  or  any  other  action,  in  prohibition  of  importation  and  sale 
by  the  foreign  or  nonresident  importer.'  The  right  of  the  State  to 
prohibit  the  sale  in  the  original  package  was  denied  in  the  absence  of 
any  law  of  Congress  upon  the  subject  permitting  the  State  to  prohibit 
such  sale.  There  is  no  such  law  of  Congress  relating  to  articles  like 
oleomargarine.  Such  articles  are  therefore  in  like  condition  as  were 
the  liquors  in  the  cases  above  cited. 

"Subsequent  to  the  decision  in  the  Leisy  case  and  on  the  8th  of 
August,  1890,  chapter  728,  26  Stat.  L.,  313,  Congress  passed  an  act, 
commonly  known  as  the  Wilson  Act,  which  provided  that  upon  the 
arrival  in  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  intoxicating  liquors  trans- 
ported therein  they  should  be  subject  to  the  operation  and  effect  of  the 
laws  of  the  State  or  Territory  enacted  in  the  exercise  of  its  police 
power  to  the  same  extent  and  in  the  same  manner  as  though  such 


98  OLEOMARGARINE. 

liquors  had  been  produced  in  such  State  or  Territory,  and  that  they 
should  not  be  exempt  therefrom  by  reason  of  being  introduced  therein 
in  original  packages  or  otherwise.  This  was  held  to  be  a  valid  and 
constitutional  exercise  of  the  power  conferred  upon  Congress." 

Senator  BATE.  If  I  understand,  they  did  not  have  the  right  to  tax  it 
until  after  the  original  package  was  broken,  or  there  was  a  sale  by  the 
importer  or  agent,  and  it  became  mingled  with  the  common  property 
of  that  State. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  When  it  became  mingled  with  the  common  property 
of  the  State  it  was  subject  to  the  State  law  then.  The  court  continues: 

"In  re  Rahrer,  petitioner,  140  U.  S.,  545.  In  the  absence  of  a  Con- 
gressional legislation,  therefore,  the  right  to  import  a  lawful  article  of 
commerce  from  one  State  to  another  continues  until  a  sale  in  the  orig- 
inal package  in  which  the  article  was  introduced  into  the  State." 

This  opinion  will  account  for  the  effort  being  made  by  the  friends  of 
this  bill  to  secure  the  passage  of  what  is  known  as  the  first  section  of 
the  pending  bill.  It  is  an  effort  to  place  oleomargarine  within  the 
police  powers  of  the  State,  the  same  as  was  done  with  intoxicating 
liquors  by  the  Wilson  Act  of  1890.  The  Supreme  Court  in  concluding 
its  opinion  upon  this  subject  in  the  Schollenberger  case  held  as  follows: 

"How  small  may  be  an  original  package  it  is  not  necessary  to  here 
determine.  We  do  say  that  a  sale  of  a  10-pound  package  of  oleomarga- 
rine, manufactured,  packed,  marked,  imported,  and  sold  under  the 
circumstances  set  forth  in  detail  in  the  special  verdict  was  a  valid  sale, 
although  to  a  person  who  was  himself  a  consumer.  We  do  not  say  or 
intimate  that  this  right  of  sale  extended  beyond  the  first  sale  by  the 
importer  after  its  arrival  within  the  State." 

And,  further: 

"The  right  of  the  importer  to  sell  can  not  depend  upon  whether  the 
original  package  is  suitable  for  retail  trade  or  not.  His  right  to  sell 
is  the  same,  whether  to  consumers  or  to  wholesale  dealers  in  the  article, 
provided  he  sells  them  in  original  packages.  This  does  not  interfere 
with  the  acknowledged  right  of  the  State  to  use  such  means  as  may  be 
necessary  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  an  adulterated  article,  and  for 
that  purpose  to  inspect  and  test  the  article  introduced,  provided  the 
State  law  does  really  inspect  and  does  not  substantially  prohibit  the 
introduction  of  the  pure  article,  and  thereby  interfere  with  interstate 
commerce.  It  can  not,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  introduction 
of  an  impure  or  adulterated  article,  absolutely  prohibit  the  introduc- 
tion of  that  which  is  pure  and  wholesome.  The  act  of  the  legislature 
of  Pennsylvania  under  consideration,  to  the  extent  that  it  prohibits 
the  introduction  of  oleomargarine  from  another  State  and  its  sale  in 
the  original  package,  as  described  in  the  special  verdict,  is  invalid." 

Mr.  Justice  Gray  and  Mr.  Justice  Harlan  dissented  from  this  opinion. 

There  is  another  case,  following  this  immediately,  known  as  the  case 
of  Collins  v.  New  Hampshire.  It  is  reported  on  page  30  of  the  same 
volume  (171  U.  S.).  To  that  opinion  I  desire  to  call  your  attention, 
for  it  raises  and  disposes  of  another  point  involved  in  this  legislation. 
The  Supreme  Court  in  its  opinion  in  the  Collins  Case,  page  34,  says: 

' c  If  this  provision  for  coloring  the  article  "- 

I  will  state,  by  the  way,  that  the  New  Hampshire  law  at  that  time 
required  oleomargarine  to  be  colored  pink.  That  was  held  invalid — 
"If  this  provision  for  coloring  the  article  were  a  legal  condition,  a 
legislature  could  not  be  limited  to  pink  in  its  choice  of  colors.  The 


OLEOMARGARINE.  99 

legislative  fancy  or  taste  would  be  boundless.  It  might  equally  as 
well  provide  that  it  should  be  colored  blue  or  red  or  black.  Nor  do 
we  see  that  it  would  be  limited  to  the  use  of  coloring  matter.  It 
might,  instead  of  that,  provide  that  the  article  should  only  be  sold  if 
mixed  with  some  other  article  which,  while  not  deleterious  to  health, 
would  nevertheless  give  out  a  most  offensive  smell.  If  the  legislature 
have  the  power  to  direct  that  the  article  shall  be  colored  pink,  which 
ctin  only  be  accomplished  by  the  use  of  some  foreign  substance  that 
will  have  that  effect,  we  do  not  know  upon  what  principle  it  should  be 
confined  to  discoloration,  or  why  a  provision  for  an  offensive  odor 
would  not  be  just  as  valid  as  one  prescribing  the  particular  color.  The 
truth  is,  however,  as  we  have  above  stated,  the  statute  in  its  necessary 
effect  is  prohibitory,  and  therefore,  upon  the  principle  recognized  in 
the  Pennsylvania  cases,  it  is  invalid." 

The  same  justices  dissented  in  this  as  in  the  other  case. 

I  now  invite  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  provisions  of  the 
pending  bill.  The  first  section  of  the  bill  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  most 
objectionable  of  any  of  its  provisions.  It  is  as  follows: 

' '  Be  it  enacted,  etc. ,  That  all  articles  known  as  oleomargarine,  but- 
terine,  imitation  butter,  or  imitation  cheese,  or  any  substance  in  the 
semblance  of  butter  or  cheese  not  the  usual  product  of  the  dairy  and 
not  made  exclusively  of  pure  and  unadulterated  milk  or  cream,  trans- 
ported into  any  State  or  Territory,  and  remaining  therein  for  use, 
consumption,  sale,  or  storage  therein,  shall,  upon  the  arrival  within  the 
limits  of  such  State  or  Territory,  be  subject  to  the  operation  and  effect 
of  the  laws  of  such  State  or  Territory  enacted  into  the  exercise  of  its 
police  powers  to  the  same  extent  and  in  the  same  manner  as  though 
such  articles  or  substances  had  been  produced  in  such  State  or  Terri- 
tory, and  shall  not  be  exempt  therefrom  -by  reason  of  being  introduced 
therein  in  original  packages  or  otherwise:  Provided,  That  nothing  in 
this  act  shall  be  construed  to  permit  any  State  to  forbid  the  manufac- 
ture or  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  a  separate  and  distinct  form  and  in 
such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  free 
from  coloration  or  ingredient  that  causes  it  to  look  like  butter." 

This  is  for  the  purpose  of  getting  around  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  Leisy  Case  and  in  the  Schollenberger  Case,  which  held  dis- 
tinctly that  you  could  not  prevent  an  original  package  from  going  into 
a  State  and  being  sold  in  the  original  package  to  a  consumer.  If  this 
provision  should  become  a  law,  it  would  breathe  the  breath  of  life  into 
the  statutes  of  32  States  of  the  Union,  which  are  now  practically  void  by 
reason  of  the  recent  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
in  the  Schollenberger  Case.  A  synopsis  of  these  laws  is  given  in  the 
hearings  before  the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture  on  the  Grout 
bill,  pages  11  to  17. 

The  attention  of  this  committee  is  called  to  some  of  these  State 
enactments. 

The  law  of  California  prohibits  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine colored  to  imitate  butter.  Patrons  of  eating  places  shall  be 
notified  if  substitutes  for  butter  or  cheese  are  used;  and  its  use  in  State 
charitable  institutions  is  prohibited. 

In  Connecticut  the  law  prohibits  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  unless 
free  from  coloring  matter  which  causes  it  to  look  like  butter.  The 
use  of  imitation  butter  in  public  eating  places,  bakeries,  etc. ,  must  be 
made  known  by  signs. 


100  OLEOMARGARINE. 

In  Iowa  the  law  is  practically  the  same  as  in  Connecticut.  The  use 
of  colored  oleomargarine  in  hotels,  bakeries,  etc. ,  must  be  made  known 
by  signs. 

In  Maryland  the  manufacture,  sale,  and  use  in  public  eating  places 
of  any  article  in  imitation  of  butter  is  prohibited.  Mixtures  of  any 
animal  fats  or  animal  or  vegetable  oils  with  milk,  cream,  or  butter 
shall  be  uncolored  and  marked  with  the  names  and  percentages  of 
adulterants,  and  this  information  shall  be  given  to  purchasers. 

In  New  Jersey  oleomargarine  in  imitation  of  pure,  yellow  butter 
is  prohibited.  But  if  it  is  free  from  artificial  color  and  in  original 
package,  encircled  by  a  wide  black  band  bearing  the  name  of  the 
maker,  and  having  the  name  of  the  contents  plainly  branded  on  them 
with  a  hot  iron,  its  sale  is  permitted.  Retail  sales  must  be  accom- 
panied with  a  printed  card  containing  ingredients  and  naming  maker, 
and  the  purchaser  must  also  be  orally  informed  of  the  character  of  the 
article  at  the  time  of  sale. 

In  New  York  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  imitation  of  but- 
ter is  prohibited,  and  no  article  intended  as  an  imitation  of  butter  shall 
be  colored  yellow. 

In  Vermont  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  imitation 
of  butter  is  prohibited.  Imitation  butter  for  use  in  public  eating 
places  or  for  sale  shall  be  colored  pink. 

In  West  Virginia  there  is  a  pink-color  law. 

In  Wisconsin  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  imitation 
of  yellow  butter  is  prohibited;  but  free  from  any  color  its  sale  is  per- 
mitted, but  it  shall  not  be  sold  as  butter.  Signs  must  be  displayed  in 
selling  places  and  on  wagons,  and  hotels,  etc.,  using  it  must  notify 
guests.  Its  use  is  not  permitted  in  charitable  or  penal  institutions. 

In  Pennsylvania  the  statute-  of  May  21, 1885,  which  was  pronounced 
unconstitutional  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the 
Schollenberger  case,  has  been  supplemented  by  the  act  of  May  5, 1899, 
which  prohibits  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  made  in 
semblance  of  butter.  The  act  of  1885  used  the  words,  ' '  designed  to  take 
the  place  of  butter. "  The  legislature  has  evidently  endeavored  to  bring 
its  statute  within  the  ruling  in  the  Schollenberger  case,  but  I  am  inclined 
to  the  opinion  that  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of 
Plumley  v.  Massachusetts  (155  U.  S.,  462)  was  due  to  defective 
pleadings  in  the  case.  If  Plumley  had  in  his  petition  alleged  that, 
at  the  time  and  place  charged,  he  offered  for  sale  and  sold  one 
package  containing  10  pounds  of  oleomargarine  manufactured  in 
the  State  of  Illinois  and  shipped  to  him  as  the  agent  of  the  man- 
ufacturers, packed,  sealed,  marked,  stamped,  and  branded  in  accord- 
ance with  the  requirements  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  August  2,  1SSO; 
that  said  package  was  an  original  package,  as  required  by  said  act,  and 
was  of  such  form,  size,  and  weight  as  is  used  by  producers  or  shippers 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  convenience  in  handling  of  merchandise 
between  dealers  in  the  ordinary  course  of  commerce;  and  that  said 
form,  size,  and  weight  were  adopted  in  good  faith,  and  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  evading  the  statutes  of  Massachusetts;  that  at  the  time  alleged 
the  oleomargarine  sold  by  defendant  remained  in  the  original  package — 
being  the  same  package — with  seals,  marks,  stamps,  and  brands 
unbroken  in  which  it  was  packed  by  the  manufacturers  in  Illinois  and 
thence  transported  to  the  city  of  Boston;  and  that  said  package  was 
not  broken  nor  opened  on  the  premises  of  defendant,  and  that  as  soon 


OLEOMARGARINE.  101 

as  it  was  sold  it  was  removed  from  the  premises,  as  was  alleged  and 
proven  in  the  Schollenberger  Case.  The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
would  undoubtedly  have  been  the  same  as  in  the  latter  case.  The  right 
to  import  from  foreign  countries  and  from  other  States  any  legitimate 
articles  of  commerce  and  sell  the  same  in  the  State  into  which  they  are 
imported  in  the  original  packages  has  been  recognized  and  sustained 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  for  seventy-five  years  by 
an  unbroken  line  of  decisions.  In  the  leading  cases  of  Gibbons  v. 
Ogden  (9  Wheaton,  1),  and  Brown  v.  Maryland  (12  Wheaton,  419),  the 
opinions  were  written  by  Chief  Justice  John  Marshall,  the  most  illus- 
trious jurist  our  country  has  produced.  In  those  cases  the  great  Chief 
Justice  delivered  opinions  which  have  become  classics  in  our  jurispru- 
dence, and  no  jurists  who  value  their  reputations  as  such  will  ever  have 
the  temerity  to  assail  their  soundness. 

I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  one  of  the  opinions 
of  Chief  Justice  Marshall  on  this  subject,  in  12  Wheaton,  in  the  case 
of  Brown  against  Maryland.  This  case  was  decided  in  1827: 

"It  may  be  doubted  whether  any  of  the  evils  proceeding  from  the 
feebleness  of  the  Federal  Government  contributed  more  to  that  great 
revolution  which  introduced  the  present  system  than  the  deep  and 
general  conviction  that  commerce  ought  to  be  regulated  by  Congress. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  matter  of  surprise  that  the  grant  should  be  as 
extensive  as  the  mischief,  and  should  comprehend  all  foreign  commerce 
and  all  commerce  among  the  States.  To  construe  the  power  so  as  to 
impair  its  efficacy  would  tend  to  defeat  an  object  in  the  attainment  of 
which  the  American  public  took,  and  justly  took,  that  strong  interest 
which  arose  from  a  full  conviction  of  its  necessity. 

;'What,  then,  is  the  just  extent  of  a  power  to  regulate  commerce 
with  foreign  nations  and  among  the  several  States?  This  question 
was  considered  in  the  case  of  Gibbons  v.  Ogden  (9  Wheat.,  1),  in  which 
it  was  declared  to  be  complete  in  itself,  and  to  acknowledge  no  limita- 
tions other  than  are  prescribed  by  the  Constitution.  The  power  is 
coextensive  with  the  subject  on  which  it  acts,  and  can  not  be  stopped 
at  the  external  boundary  of  a  State  but  must  enter  its  interior.  We 
deem  it  unnecessary  now  to  reason  in  support  of  these  propositions. 
Their  truth  is  proved  by  facts  continually  before  our  eyes,  and  was, 
we  think,  demonstrated,  if  they  could  require  demonstration,  in  the 
case  already  mentioned. 

"If  this  power  reaches  the  interior  of  a  State,  and  may  be  there 
exercised,  it  must  be  capable  of  authorizing  the  sale  of  those  articles 
which  it  introduces.  Commerce  is  intercourse;  one  of  its  most  ordi- 
nary ingredients  is  traffic.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  power  to 
authorize  this  traffic,  when  given  in  the  most  comprehensive  terms  with 
the  intent  that  its  efficacy  should  be  complete,  should  cease  at  the 
point  when  its  continuance  is  indispensable  to  its  value.  To  what  pur- 
pose should  the  power  to  allow  importation  be  given,  unaccompanied 
with  the  power  to  authorize  a  sale  of  the  thing  imported  ?  Sale  is  the 
object  of  importation,  and  is  an  essential  ingredient  of  that  intercourse 
of  which  importation  constitutes  a  part.  It  is  as  essential  an  ingre- 
dient, as  indispensable  to  the  existence  of  the  entire  thing,  then,  as 
importation  itself.  It  must  be  considered  as  a  component  part  of  the 
power  to  regulate  commerce.  Congress  has  a  right,  not  only  to 
authorize  importation,  but  to  authorize  the  importer  to  sell." 


102  OLEOMARGARINE. 

In  the  case  of  Leisy  v.  Hardin  (135  U.  S.,  100-124)  the  right  to 
import  into  and  sell  beer  in  original  packages  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  in 
the  face  of  the  local  prohibitory  law,  was  recognized  and  upheld. 
After  the  decision  in  that  case  Congress  was  appealed  to  by  the  Sen- 
ators and  Representatives  in  Congress  from  States  which  prohibited 
the  importation  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  and  they  secured  the 
passage  of  an  act  on  the  8th  of  August,  1890,  known  as  the  Wilson 
Act  (26  Stat.,  313),  which  provided  that  upon  the  arrival  in  any  State 
or  Territory  of  intoxicating  liquors  transported  therein  they  should  be 
subject  to  the  operation  and  eifect  of  the  laws  of  the  State  or  Terri- 
tory enacted  in  the  exercise  of  its  police  power  to  the  same  extent  and 
in  the  same  manner  as  though  such  liquors  had  been  produced  in  such 
State  or  Territory,  and  that  they  should  not  be  exempt  therefrom  by 
reason  of  being  introduced  therein  in  original  packages  or  otherwise. 

In  the  case  In  re  Kahrer  (140  U.  S. ,  545)  this  act  in  reference  to 
intoxicating  liquors  was  held  to  be  a  valid  and  constitutional  exercise 
of  the  power  conferred  upon  Congress. 

But  in  the  absence  of  Congressional  legislation  the  right  to  import 
a  lawful  article  of  commerce  from  one  State  to  another  continues  until 
a  sale  in  the  original  package  in  which  the  article  was  introduced  into 
the  State.  (Schollenberger  v.  Pennsylvania,  171  U.  S.,  23.) 

The  friends  of  the  pending  bill  now  seek  to  place  oleomargarine 
upon  the  same  plane  upon  which  Congress  placed  intoxicating  liquors. 
The  articles  are  entirely  difl'erent.  The  one  is  recognized  everywhere 
as  a  proper  subject  of  police  regulation,  and  each  State  should  be  left 
free  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  as  it  may  see  fit. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  permit  me  right  here  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  A  very  large  number  of  States  have  passed 
laws  which  practically  make  oleomargarine  a  contraband  article? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Only  a  few  States  have  passed  laws  making 
liquor  a  contraband  article. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  That  is  true. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  simply  wanted  to  call  }^our  attention  to 
that  fact  as  you  went  along. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  permitting  the  States 
which  have  passed  prohibitory  liquor  laws  to  have  the  benefit  of  those 
laws  that  Congress  passed  the  act  of  1890  and  took  intoxicating  liquors 
out  of  the  list  of  legitimate  articles  of  commerce  and  permitted  them 
to  be  subject  to  the  police  powers  of  the  States.  This  legislation  in 
reference  to  intoxicating  liquors  is  not  of  a  kind  that  is  applicable  to 
oleomargarine.  Oleomargarine  is  universally  conceded  to  be  a  whole- 
some article  of  food  and  a  legitimate  article  of  commerce.  In  this 
connection  I  desire  to  state  that  that  statement  does  not  depend  upon 
my  aifirmance  or  upon  the  affirmance  of  any  committee  of  this  body. 
It  has  been  so  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  is  the  law  of  the  land  until  it  has  been  reversed.  Congress,  there- 
fore, has  no  more  right  to  place  oleomargarine  under  the  police  power 
of  the  State  than  it  has  to  place  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  woolen 
goods,  iron,  or  tin  plate  under  the  police  power  of  the  States,  enabling 
them  thus  to  suppress,  if  they  please,  the  manufacture  of  such  articles. 

This  brings  us  to  the  consideration  of  two  of  the  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  which  are  applicable  to  the  pending  bill.  The  first  is 


OLEOMARGARINE.  103 

paragraph  2  of  section  10  of  Article  VIII,  and  the  other  is  paragraph 
3  of  section  8  of  Article  I.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  and 
of  every  lawyer  in  the  Senate  and  the  House  and  the  country  to  these 
provisions.  They  are  as  follows: 

"  No  State  shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  Congress,  lay  any  imposts 
or  duties  on  imports  or  exports  except  what  may  be  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  executing  its  inspection  laws;  and  the  net  produce  of  all  duties 
and  imposts  laid  by  any  State  on  imports  or  exports  shall  be  for  use  of 
the  Treasury  of  the  United  States;  and  all  such  laws  shall  be  subject 
to  the  revision  and  control  of  the  Congress."  Art.  VIII,  sec.  10, 
par.  2. 

Now  bear  in  mind  that  this  is  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which 
is  invoked  in  justification  of  the  first  section  of  the  bill.  It  must  rest 
there,  or  it  can  not  rest  any  place  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  The  next  provision  is,  "Congress  shall  have  power  *  *  * 
to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations  and  among"  the  several 
States,  and  with  the  Indian  tribes."  (Art.  I,  sec.  8,  par.  3.) 

The  confusion  which  has  arisen  in  the  minds  of  many  jurists  and 
statesmen  in  construing  these  constitutional  provisions  is  due  to  a 
misconception  of  the  police  powers  of  the  States. 

The  police  powers  of  the  States  are  inherent  in  the  States  themselves, 
and  can  not  be  exercised  or  controlled  by  Congress.  Neither  of  the 
constitutional  provisions  just  read  can  be  construed  as  granting  to 
Congress  the  power  to  interfere  with  or  regulate  matters  in  a  State 
which  are  the  proper  subject  of  police  regulation  or  power,  nor  can 
either  of  them  be  construed  as  implying  that  there  are  certain  police 
powers  which  the  States  may  not  exercise  without  the  consent  of 
Congress. 

In  this  connection  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  125  U.  S. ,  page  489.  This  is  the 
case  of  Bowman  v.  The  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company 
In  that  case  the  court,  referring  to  a  previous  decision  of  the  court  on 
the  subject,  said : 

"Upon  this  point  the  observations  of  Mr.  Justice  Catron  in  the 
License  Cases  (5  How. ,  504, 599)  are  very  much  to  the  point.  Speaking 
of  the  police  power,  as  reserved  to  the  States,  and  its  relation  to  the 
power  granted  to  Congress  over  commerce,  he  said  :  'The  assumption 
is  that  the  police  power  was  not  touched  by  the  Constitution,  but  left  to 
the  States,  as  the  Constitution  found  it.  This  is  admitted ;  and  when- 
ever a  thing,  from  character  or  condition,  is  of  a  description  to  be 
regulated  by  that  power  in  the  State,  then  the  regulation  may  be  made 
by  the  State,  and  Congress  can  not  interfere.  But  this  must  always 
depend  on  facts  subject  to  legal  ascertainment,  so  that  the  injured  may 
have  redress  ;  and  the  fact  must  find  its  support  in  this,  whether  the 
prohibited  article  belongs  to,  and  is  subject  to  be  regulated  as  part  of, 
foreign  commerce  or  of  commerce  among  the  States.  If,  from  its 
nature,  it  does  not  belong  to  commerce,  or  if  its-condition,  from  putres- 
cence or  other  cause,  is  such  when  it  is  about  to  enter  the  State  that 
it  no  longer  belongs  to  commerce,  or,  in  other  words,  is  rot  a  com- 
mercial article,  then  the  State  power  may  exclude  its  introduction, 
and  as  an  incident  to  this  power  a  State  may  use  means  to  ascertain 
the  fact;  and  here  is  the  limit  between  the  sovereign  power  of  the  State 
and  the  Federal  power — that  is  to  say,  that  which  does  not  belong  to 
commerce  is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  police  power  of  the  State 


104  OLEOMARGARINE. 

and  that  which  does  belong"  to  commerce  is  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  United  States  ;  and  to  this  limit  must  all  the  general  views  come, 
as  I  suppose,  that  were  suggested  in  the  reasoning  of  this  court  in  the 
cases  of  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  Brown  v.  The  State  of  Maryland,  and  New 
York?;.  Miln.'" 

And  further,  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of  Railroad  Company 
v.  Husen  (95  U.  S.,  465),  used  this  language: 

' '  While  we  unhesitatingly  admit  that  a  State  may  pass  sanitary  laws 
p-nd  laws  for  the  protection  of  life,  liberty,  health,  or  property  within 
its  borders;  while  it  may  prevent  persons  and  animals  suffering-  under 
contagious  or  infectious  diseases,  or  convicts,  etc. ,  from  entering  the 
State;  while,  for  the  purpose  of  self -protection,  it  m&y  establish  quar- 
antine and  reasonable  inspection  laws,  it  may  not  interfere  with  trans- 
portation into  or  through  the  State  beyond  what  is  absolutely  necessary 
for  its  self -protection.  It  may  not,  under  the  cover  of  exerting  its 
police  powers,  substantially  prohibit  or  burden  either  foreign  or  inter- 
state commerce." 

Again,  in  the  Bowman  case  the  court  said: 

' '  If  so,  it  has  left  to  each  State,  according  to  its  own  caprice  and 
arbitrary  will,  to  discriminate  for  or  against  every  article  grown,  pro- 
duced, manufactured  or  sold  in  any  State  and  sought  to  be  introduced 
as  an  article  of  commerce  into  any  other." 

Just  as  this  bill  proposes  to  do. 

"If  the  State  of  Iowa  may  prohibit  the  importation  of  intoxicating 
liquors  from  all  other  States  it  may  also  include  tobacco  or  any  other 
article,  the  use  or  abuse  of  which  it  may  deem  deleterious.  It  may 
not  choose  even  to  be  governed  by  considerations  growing  out  of  the 
health,  comfort,  or  peace  of  the  community.  Its  policy  may  be  directed 
to  other  ends.  It  may  chose  to  establish  a  system  directed  to  the  pro- 
motion and  benefit  of  its  own  agriculture,  manufactures,  or  arts  of  any 
description,  and  prevent  the  introduction  and  sale  within  its  limits  of 
any  or  of  all  articles  that  it  may  select  as  coming  into  competition 
with  those  which  it  seeks  to  protect." 

Just  as  is  done  in  this  case.  The  court  holds  that  that  can  not  be 
done. 

In  view  of  these  opinions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  what  is  the  proper 
construction  to  be  given  to  the  constitutional  provisions  I  have  quoted  ? 

What  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  "imposts  or  duties  on  imports  or 
exports  ? "  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  his  opinion  in  the  case  of  Brown 
v.  Maryland  (12  Wheaton,  436),  answers  this  question.  He  said:  "An 
impost  or  duty  on  imports  is  a  custom  or  tax  levied  on  articles  brought 
into  a  country,  and  is  most  usually  secured  before  the  importer  is 
allowed  to  exercise  his  right  of  ownership  over  them."  The  constitu- 
tional provision,  then,  which  says  "no  State  shall,  without  the  con- 
sent of  Congress,  lay  any  duties  on  imports"  means  that  the  States 
can  not  impose  customs  duties  or  taxes  on  imports  without  the  consent 
of  Congress.  That  is  all  that  is  meant.  And  it  is  further  provided 
that  the  net  produce  of  all  such  duties  shall  be  for  ' '  the  use  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States." 

Is  there  any  semblance  between  that  authority  as  defined  by  Chief 
Justice  Marshall  and  the  authority  undertaken  to  be  conferred  by  the 
first  section  of  the  bill,  which  simply  says  that  the  article  of  oleomar- 
garine shall  be  placed  under  the  supervision  of  the  State  laws  passed 
in  the  exercise  of  their  police  power,  which  State  laws,  as  has  been 


OLEOMARGARINE.  105 

pointed  out,  are  generally  of  a  nature  to  prohibit  entirely  the  intro- 
duction and  sale  in  the  State  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  semblance  of 
butter. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Is  there  any  such  issue  before  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No,  sir;  but  I  am  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that 
you  are  seeking  to  exert  the  power  which  relates  to  duties  on  imports 
as  authority  for  enacting  a  law  placing  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
oleomargarine  in  the  States  under  this  provision  of  the  Constitution, 
so  that  it  can  interfere  with  the  introduction  of  these  articles  into  the 
State. 

No  duties  were  to  be  laid  on  imports  by  a  State  "except  what  may 
be  absolutely  necessary  for  executing  its  inspection  laws."  These  are 
the  duties  that  the  States  may  levy  upon  articles  coming  into  the  State 
which  are  legitimate  articles  of  commerce.  The  States  may  pass  laws 
for  the  inspection  of  all  products  which  may  come  into  them  from  other 
States  or  from  foreign  countries.  Such  laws  are  a  proper  exercise  of 
the  police  power  of  the  States.  But,  as  was  said  by  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  case  of  Railroad  Company  v.  Husen  (95  U.  S.,  465),  "the  police 
power  of  a  State  can  not  obstruct  foreign  or  interstate  commerce  beyond 
the  necessity  for  its  exercise;  and  under  color  of  it  objects  not  within 
its  scope  can  not  be  secured  at  the  expense  of  the  protection  afforded 
by  the  Federal  Constitution."  The  States  can  provide  for  reasonable 
inspection,  but  can  not  obstruct  interstate  or  foreign  commerce  or 
burden  it  beyond  the  requirements  of  the  inspection. 

The  power  of  Congress  to  pass  the  first  section  of  the  pending  bill 
can  not  be  invoked  or  justified  under  this  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. Congress  is  not  giving  its  consent  to  the  States  to  lay  duties  on 
imports,  which  duties,  if  laid,  should  be  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States. 

The  consent  of  Congress  is  not  given  for  the  purposes  contemplated 
in  the  provision  to  which  attention  has  been  called. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Have  any  of  the  States  asked  the  right  to  lay  imposts 
on  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No,  sir;  none  of  them. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Is  there  any  mention  of  such  fact  in  the  proceedings  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  None  whatever;  but  that  is  the  only  power  you  can 
ask  for — the  right  to  do  that  under  this  provision  in  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Is  that  included  in  the  Wilson  Act? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  is  included  in  the  Wilson  Act  so  far  as  intoxica- 
ting liquors  are  concerned,  which  were  to  be  subject  to  the  police 
power  by  reason  of  the  very  nature  of  the  subject  itself. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  This  is  a  revenue  measure. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  1  will  come  to  that  point  in  a  moment  and  discuss  it 
further  on.  Therefore  I  ask  gentlemen  of  the  committee  and  Congress 
to  consider  the  scope  of  the  provision  of  the  Constitution,  and  unless 
section  1  can  be  brought  within  the  provisions  of  that  section  it  has 
no  place  in  the  Constitution  upon  which  it  can  rest. 

Now,  can  it  rest  upon  any  other  provision?  The  other  constitu- 
tional provision  involved  is  the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  com- 
merce with  foreign  nations  and  among  the  several  States.  This  power 
is  given  to  Congress  alone.  There  is  no  exception  or  qualification  to 
this  grant  of  power.  Congress  alone  can  exercise  it.  The  power  can 
not  be  delegated  by  Congress  to  the  States.  If  it  had  been  intended 
to  permit  the  States  to  exercise  this  power  under  any  circumstances 


106  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  Constitution  would  have  so  provided.  But  it  did  not  so  provide. 
As  was  said  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Robbins  v.  Shelby 
Taxing  District  (120  U.  S.,  489),  "that,  in  the  matter  of  interstate 
commerce,  the  United  States  are  but  one  country  and  are  and  must  be 
subject  to  one  system  of  regulation  and  not  to  a  multitude  of  systems. 
The  doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  that  commerce,  except  as  regulated  by 
Congress,  is  so  firmly  established  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  enlarge 
further  upon  this  subject." 

That  is  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court — that  under  the  commerce 
clause  Congress  alone  can  pass  the  laws  that  are  to  regulate  the  inter- 
state and  foreign  commerce,  and  it  can  not  delegate  that  power  to  the 
States.  Is  there  a  delegation  of  such  power  in  section  1  of  this  bill? 

The  right  to  pass  the  first  section  of  the  pending  bill  can  not  be 
derived  from  the  commerce  clause  of  the  Constitution.  In  fact,  there 
is  no  power  given  in  the  Constitution,  either  directly  or  by  implication, 
for  the  passage  of  this  first  section.  Its  passage  will  be,  in  my  opinion, 
a  plain  and  flagrant  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
There  is  no  warrant  in  the  Constitution  for  such  legislation,  and  if 
enacted  into  law  the  courts  must  hold  it  null  and  void. 

So  much  for  the  first  section  of  the  bill. 

The  second  and  only  other  section  of  the  bill  is  as  follows: 

"  That  after  the  passage  of  this  act  the  tax  upon  oleomargarine,  as 
prescribed  in  section  8  of  the  act  approved  August  2,  1886,  and  enti- 
tled '  An  act  defining  butter,  also  imposing  a  tax  upon  and  regulating 
the  manufacture,  sale,  importation,  and  exportation  of  oleomargarine,' 
shall  be  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound  when  the  same  is  not  colored 
in  imitation  of  butter;  but  when  colored  in  imitation  of  butter  the  tax 
to  be  paid  by  the  manufacturer  shall  be  10  cents  per  pound,  to  be  lev- 
ied and  collected  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  said  act. " 

This  section  invokes  the  taxing  power  of  the  Constitution  not  for 
the  purpose  of  raising  revenue,  but  for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  colored  to  resemble  butter. 

I  want  it  distinctly  understood  that  I  have  not  contended,  and  I  do 
not  know  that  anyone  else  contends,  that  the  object  of  this  bill  is  to 
suppress  the  manufacture  of  uncolored  oleomargarine,  but  all  of  the 
gentlemen  opposing  the  bill  and  favoring  it  concede  that  it  will  work 
to  the  destruction  of  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  the 
semblance  of  butter,  and  that  is  the  object  of  the  bill. 

The  eighth  section  of  Article  I  of  the  Constitution  is  as  follows: 

uThe  Congress  shall  have  power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties, 
imports,  and  excises  to  pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the  common 
defense  and  general  welfare  of  the  United  States." 

The  "general  welfare"  to  which  reference  is  made  is  that  welfare 
which  is  provided  for  and  set  forth  in  the  text  of  the  Constitution 
itself,  and  not  that  welfare  which  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  law- 
making  power.  This  is  universally  conceded.  To  hold  otherwise 
would  destroy  all  the  limitations  and  restrictions  of  the  Constitution. 
The  power,  then,  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  and  imposts  is  given 
in  order  to  provide  the  means  uto  pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the 
common  defense  and  general  welfare  of  the  United  States,"  as  author- 
ized in  the  Constitution.  Will  any  Senator  or  Representative  in  Con- 
gress say,  upon  his  oath,  that  this  section  of  the  pending  bill  is  being 
enacted  uto  pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the  common  defense  and 
general  welfare"  of  the  United  States  ? "  Is  this  proposed  taxation  for 


OLEOMARGARINE.  107 

a  constitutional  purpose?  Has  it  any  warrant  or  foundation  in  the 
Constitution  ? 

There  is  already  pending  in  the  Senate  a  House  bill  to  reduce  the 
revenue,  for  the  reason  that  the  existing  revenue  laws  are  bringing  into 
the  Treasury  a  large  surplus — a  surplus  of  many  millions  of  dollars. 
Revenue  is  not  the  object.  What,  then,  is  the  object?  There  can  be 
but  one  answer  to  this  question,  namely,  the  placing  upon  yellow  oleo- 
margarine a  tax  so  burdensome  that  it  can  not  be  paid,  and  thereby  the 
loss  of  the  revenue  now  being  collected  and  the  destruction  of  the 
industry  which  is  taxed. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  similar  legisla- 
tion to  be  solely  within  the  discretion  of  the  lawmaking  power.  So 
it  has.  It  has  held  that  the  courts  will  not  inquire  into  the  motives  of 
legislators  when  exercising  the  discretion  which  the  Constitution  has 

fiven  them.  But,  gentlemen  of  this  committee,  the  courts  have  not 
eld  that  the  lawmakers  are  not  bound  to  obey  the  Constitution.  You 
have  each  taken  an  oath  to  support  it.  That  oath  is  a  moral  obligation 
only,  but  it  is  binding  upon  the  consciences  of  legislators,  and  they 
can  not  violate  the  Constitution  without  moral  turpitude.  If  you  are 
convinced — and  I  trust  you  are — that  there  is  no  warrant  in  the  Con- 
stitution for  the  passage  of  this  legislation  you  can  not  give  it  your 
sanction.  I  appeal  to  your  judgments  in  the  one  case,  and  to  your 
consciences  in  the  other. 

This  concludes  what  I  desire  to  state  in  regard  to  the  legal  aspects 
of  the  case.  There  are,  as  you  know,  but  two  sections  to  the  bill. 
The  first  section  has  for  its  object  the  placing  of  oleomargarine  within 
the  police  powers  of  the  States.  Thirty-two  States  have  already,  under 
the  exercise  of  what  they  call  their  police  powers,  passed  laws  which 
prohibit  the  sale  of  colored  oleomagarine  in  those  States.  In  my  judg- 
ment those  laws  are  now,  by  reason  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  virtually  nullities  and  can  not  be  enforced,  when  an  importation 
is  made  from  one  State  into  another  in  the  original  package,  as  pointed 
out  in  the  Schollenberger  case,  and  sold  in  such  package.  But  the 
effort  is  made  to  take  the  article  of  oleomargarine  from  under  the 
opinion  of  the  Schollenberger  case,  and  to  place  it  upon  the  plane  of 
intoxicating  liquors — articles  which  from  time  immemorial  have  been 
regarded  as  proper  subjects  of  the  police  powers  of  the  several  States. 
Hence,  it  was  competent  for  Congress  simply  to  recognize  the  fact 
that  intoxicating  liquors  are  subjects  of  State  control. 

In  my  judgment  Congress  did  not  give  any  power  to  the  States  by 
the  passage  of  the  Wilson  Act.  They  had  that  power  already,  and 
Congress  could  not  take  it  away  from  them.  Liquor  is'  a  proper  sub- 
ject of  the  police  power  of  the  States,  but  all  these  opinions  hold  that 
that  which  is  a  legitimate  article  of  commerce,  a  nutritious  article  of 
food,  can  not  be  interfered  >vith  in  its  importation  into  another  State 
or  from  a  foreign  country  and  in  its  sale  in  the  original  package  to 
any  person  in  that  State.  That  is  the  purport  of  these  decisions. 

Under  the  first  section  of  the  bill,  even  if  the  article  pays  the  tax 
of  lo  cents  a  pound  provided  in  the  second  section,  not  a  pound  of  it 
that  has  paid  this  burdensome  tax  can  be  put  into  these  States  and  sold. 
In  other  words,  Congress  will  say  to  the  manufacturers,  "  Pay  a  tax 
of  10  cents  a  pound,  and  you  can  manufacture  and  sell  it;"  and  at  the 
same  time  say,  "But  you  must  not  take  it  into  32  States  of  this  Union, 
f  you  do,  it  will  be  confiscated  under  the  police  laws  of  the  State. 
You  can  not  sell  a  pound  of  it  in  those  States,  after  the  Government 


108  OLEOMARGARINE. 

has  taken  the  tax  for  it.'1  To  say  nothing  of  constitutional  provisions, 
is  that  justice?  Can  you  defend  it  upon  any  ground  of  doing  justice 
to  any  class  of  our  people?  I  do  not  think  you  can. 

The  second  section  of  the  bill,  imposing  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound 
upon  the  articles  manufactured  in  semblance  of  butter,  will  only  per- 
mit the  article  having  paid  the  tax  to  be  sold  in  13  States  of  the 
Union,  and  then  under  the  laws  regulating  its  sale  by  marking  it  and 
indicating  what  it  is. 

I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that  if  you 
pass  the  first  section  of  the  bill  you  provide  as  to  every  law  in  those 
States  that  that  law  may  have  its  full  force  and  effect.  You  must  say 
that  of  the  law  which  requires  the  keeper  of  a  hotel  to  notify  all  his 
guests  that  oleomargarine  is  used  in  his  hotel;  that  he  must  put  up 
signs  here  and  there  over  his  hotel  notifying  them  that  oleomargarine 
is  used.  In  some  States  it  must  be  colored  an  offensive  color,  bearing 
which  no  one  will  purchase  it,  and  in  other  States  even  the  wagons 
carrying  it  along  streets  must  have  labels  upon  them  that  these  wagons 
are  carrying  oleomargarine.  The  inventive  genius  of  legislators,  it 
seems  to  me,  has  been  exhausted  in  throwing  around  oleomargarine 
in  the  States  those  offensive  provisions  which  will  drive  it  out  of  exist- 
ence, if  possible. 

In  this  country  we  have  for  many  years,  in  fact  from  the  foundation 
of  the  Government,  recognized  the  right  of  the  United  States,  in 
imposing  taxes  upon  foreign  goods  coming  into  this  country,  so  to 
discriminate  in  the  laying  of  those  taxes  that  our  manufacturers  would 
be  protected  from  ruinous  competition  with  the  manufacturers  of  like 
goods  in  other  countries.  That  policy  has  almost  become  a  part  of 
our  fixed  system.  But  never  until  this  legislation  has  been  invoked 
has  it  been  contended  that  Congress  should  interfere  between  home 
producers,  and  by  the  use  of  the  taxing  power  build  up  one  industry 
and  destroy  another.  This  is  the  first  attempt;  and,  gentlemen  of  the 
committee  and  of  Congress,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
if  you  start  on  this  road  there  is  no  end  to  it.  You  will  be  vexed  with 
applications  for  interfering  in  almost  every  kind  of  business  in  this 
country. 

An  effort  was  made,  and  has  been  renewed  several  times,  to  get 
Congress  to  put  a  tax  on  what  is  called  compound  lard.  In  two  or 
three  Congresses  committees  of  the  House  have  investigated  the  sub- 
ject of  compound  lard,  and  once  they  passed  a  bill  in  the  House  upon 
that  subject  for  the  purpose  of  having  compound  lard  subject  to  a  tax. 
I  do  not  know  that  that  would  make  it  any  different  from  what  oleo- 
margarine is  subject  to. 

There  has  been  a  suggestion  that  what  is  known  as  process  butter 
should  also  be  subjected  to  taxation,  but  that  suggestion  has  been  very 
much  opposed  by  those  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  process  butter. 
I  will  ask  permission  to  print  in  the  record  a  letter  that  I  have  on  the 
subject,  which  I  will  not  take  up  your  time  to  read,  showing  that  the 
dealers  in  process  butter  are  very  much  concerned  in  regard  to  this 
proposed  legislation  for  fear  that  the  next  bill  proposed  will  be  a  tax 
upon  process  butter. 

The  following  letter  was  recently  received  by  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Representatives: 

"  DANVILLE,  ILL.,  March  17,  1900. 

"DEAR  SIR:  I  see  bj-  a  circular  mailed  to  me  that  a  member  of  Con- 
gress from  Mississippi  by  the  name  of  Williams  introduced  a  bill  on 


OLEOMARGARINE.  109 

February  20  last  taxing  process  butter  as  follows:  Manufacturers,  $600 
per  year;  wholesalers,  $480  per  year;  retailers,  $48  per  year;  and  the 
butter  2  cents  per  pound.  This  would  virtually  prohibit  the  sale  of 
that  kind  of  butter.  I  get  on  hand  a  lot  of  butter  same  as  other  mer- 
chants, and  it  will  get  stale;  it  is  then  bought  up  by  parties  who  thor- 
oughly work  it  over,  taking  out  all  the  milk,  resalting  it,  and  place  it 
in  cold  storage  till  butter  gets  scarce,  then  it  finds  a  market.  There 
are  times  of  the  year  when  butter  is  very  plenty,  and  if  we  could  not 
dispose  of  it  we  could  not  pay  the  farmers  anything  for  it.  As  it  is, 
these  parties  pay  us  from  10  to  14  cents  a  pound  for  rancid  butter.  I 
suppose  I  sell  during  the  year  as  much  as  5,000  pounds  of  that  kind  of 
butter,  and  when  this  bill  is  called  up  you  would  favor  this  district  by 
voting  against  it,  not  only  for  the  benefit  of  the  merchants,  but  the 
farmers  also,  who  would  not  have  a  market  for  their  surplus  butter. 
"Respectfullv.  yours, 

"JOHN  F.  DEPKE." 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  What  is  process  butter?  It  is  butter  that  has  been 
shipped  out  to  dealers  and  by  being  kept  long  on  hand  has  become 
rancid  and  unfit  for  sale.  The  dealers  then  send  it  back  to  the  manu- 
facturing centers,  where  it  is  collected  in  immense  quantities  and  put 
through  chemical  processes  and  worked  over  again  and  made  into  a 
butter  that  goes  out  and  takes  the  place  of  dairy  butter  and  creamery 
butter.  I  think  here  is  a  place  for  Congress  if  Congress  wants  to 
look  after  a  fraud — to  look  after  a  real  one — because  I  can  not  under- 
stand how  process  butter,  which  is  made. out  of  butter  which  has 
become  rancid  and  unfit  for  use,  can  become  a  wholesome  and  health- 
ful article  of  food.  It  ought  to  be  subject  at  least  to  the  police  pow- 
ers of  the  State.  Why  not  put  it  in  this  bill? 

Mr.  HOARD.  One  thing  at  a  time. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
another  direction  in  which  articles  coming  into  general  use  in  this 
country  have  been  adulterated,  and  Congress  has  never  undertaken  to 
do  away  with  the  evil  or  to  abate  it. 

The  total  production  of  wool  in  the  United  States  in  the  census  year 
1890  amounted  to  276,000,000  pounds  in  the  grease,  which  was  equal  to 
only  92,000,000  pounds  when  scoured  ready  for  weaving  into  cloth. 
The  shoddy  used  during  that  year  in  manufacturing  woolen  goods 
amounted  to  61,626,261  pounds.  Thus  the  shoddy  had  a  cloth-pro- 
ducing power  equal  to  67  per  cent  of  all  the  wool  produced  in  the 
United  States.  The  whole  number  of  sheep  in  the  United  States  for 
the  census  year  1890  was  44,336,072;  the  fleeces  produced  scoured  wool 
to  the  amount  of  61,000,000  pounds.  Thus  the  shoddy  used  during 
that  year  produced  woolen  goods  equal  to  the  fleeces  of  29,605,168 
sheep. 

Mr.  HOARD.  A  great  fraud. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes;  equal  to  the  fleeces  of  29,000,000  sheep. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  will  not  find  any  of  the  dairy  interests  uphold- 
ing it. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  It  is  not  a  proper  subject  of  the  police  power.  We 
are  invoking  the  police  power. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  The  prevention  of  this  kind  of  adulteration- 
Mr.  FLANDERS.  That  is  not  adulteration;  it  is  a  substitution.  It  is 
not  within  the  police  power. 


110  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  But  it  is  within  the  taxing  power.  In  the  manu- 
facture of  woolen  goods  during  the  census  year  1890  the  shoddy,  cot- 
ton, and  other  adulterants  used  exceeded  the  amount  of  pure  wool, 
the  ratio  used  being  45  parts  of  pure  wool  and  55  parts  of  shoddy, 
cotton,  and  other  adulterants,  not  including  camel's  hair  and  mohair. 
Yet,  notwithstanding  this  fact,  there  has  been  no  effort  made  in  this 
country  or  in  any  other,  so  far  as  I  am  advised,  to  place  a  special  tax 
upon  woolen  goods  manufactured  in  part  of  shoddy,  cotton,  and  other 
adulterants  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  sheep  industry  from  a 
ruinous  competition  with  cheap  substitutes  for  wool.  The  adulterants, 
when  woven  into  woolen  cloths,  look  so  like  pure  woolen  goods  that 
only  an  expert  can  distinguish  the  pure  article  from  the  imitations, 
and  it  is  well  known  that  most  of  the  adulterated  fabrics  are  sold  to 
consumers  as  ' ;  all  wool  and  a  yard  wide. "  Pass  the  pending  bill  and 
the  sheep  raisers  will  come  forward  and  demand  a  tax  that  will  protect 
wool  from  ruinous  competition  with  shodd}r  and  other  adulterated 
goods. 

There  is  no  place  where  this  will  end.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  if 
our  woolen  goods  are  so  adulterated,  by  putting  shoddy  and  cotton 
into  them,  that  the  ratio  of  pure  wool  to  adulterants  is  as  that  of  45  to 
55,  Congress  might  be  called  upon,  in  the  exercise  of  its  taxing  power, 
to  place  a  duty  upon  the  home-manufactured  goods  that  are  not  com- 
posed of  pure  wool  exclusively.  That  would  protect  the  growers  of 
pure  wool — the  sheep  raisers — from  competition  with  shoddy.  I  do 
not  know  whether  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  understand  what 
shoddy  is.  Old  woolen  clbthes  are  put  into  some  kind  of  a  machine, 
ground  up,  and  then  spun  and  put  into  a  yarn,  which  is  woven  into 
new  cloths.  The  nap  is  not  more  than  a  sixteenth  of  an  inch  long,  but 
it  is  wool  all  the  same,  and  when  mixed  with  long  nap  of  natural  wool 
it  forms  a  product  which  deceives  experts  themselves. 

The  sheep  men  have  just  as  much  right  to  come  before  this  commit- 
tee and  ask  that  woolen  goods  which  do  not  consist  entirely  of  that 
article  shall  be  taxed  so  much  a  pound— 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  any  of  the  States  passed  laws  against 
shoddy  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No,  sir;  not  that  I  know  of.  I  never  heard  of  it.  It 
is  conceded  that  shoddy  is  a  legitimate  article  of  commerce,  and  that 
its  manufacture  has  proved  a  great  benefaction  to  mankind. 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  suppose  the  shoddy  betrays  its  character  largely  to 
the  feeling? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  When  there  is  as  little  as  20  per  cent  you  can  not 
tell  it  from  the  original  long  wool.  It  does  not  last  so  long;  it  is  not 
so  good;  but  it  is  used  all  the  same,  and  as  I  have  indicated  by  these 
statistics,  it  is  being  used  more  from  year  to  year.  The  object  of 
calling  attention  to  these  things  is  to  show  that  you  are  now  enter- 
ing upon  the  matter  of  interfering  between  two  home  producers  of 
articles  necessary  for  our  consumption,  and  endeavoring  by  the  taxing 
power  of  the  Government  to  build  up  one  industry  and  destroy  another. 
In  this  case  it  is  the  building  up  of  one  b}r  the  total  destruction  of  the 
other.  In  the  other  case  there  might  be  laws  which  would  allow  both 
of  them  to  exist,  but  this  does  not  allow  the  manufacture  of  oleomarga- 
rine in  the  semblance  of  butter  to  exist  at  all  as  a  manufacture  in 
this  country. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  Ill 

Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  discussion  upon  this  subject  when  the  bill  was  before  the 
House  of  Representatives  in  1886  was  misleading  to  the  Representa- 
tives. At  that  time  I  had  the  honor  to  be  a  member  of  the  House,  and 
I  was  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  during  the 
entire  discussion  of  the  oleomargarine  bill  in  the  House  in  that  Con- 
gress. At  that  time  the  House  of  Representatives  was  a  deliberative 
body,  as  the  Senate  now  is.  The  discussion  lasted  some  time,  and 
every  gentleman  who  desired  to  speak  had  the  opportunity  to  do  so. 
They  now  have  rules  by  which  they  can  bring  them  to  a  vote  in  a 
very  short  time.  At  that  time  the  discussion  upon  this  subject  was 
such  that  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  House  were  led  to  believe, 
and  did  believe,  that  oleomargarine  was  a  dangerous,  unwholesome, 
and  filthy  production. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  several  statements  made  by  gentlemen 
at  that  time.  You  will  hardly  believe  that  such  things  could  have 
been.  There  were  several  bills  pending,  and  the  Hatch  bill  was  finally 
passed.  It  provides  for  placing  a  tax  of  two  cents  a  pound  upon  oleo- 
margarine, and  for  a  general  inspection,  through  the  Departments  of 
the  Government,  of  every  part  of  the  article  manufactured,  so  that 
when  you  see  oleomargarine  manufactured  in  this  country  you  see  an 
article  that  the  officers  of  the  Government  have  inspected  from  its 
inception  to  the  time  it  passes  away  from  the  factory  in  the  original 
packages.  They  certify  to  its  condition. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  mean  that  the  law  provides  for  the  inspection? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  I  do. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  That  it  may  be  done. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  provides  for  it. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  may  be  done. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  provides  for  it. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  do  not  assert  that  it  is  done  2 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  assert  as  to  whether  or  not  any- 
body performs  his  duty,  but  the  law  presumes  that  every  officer  of 
the  Government  does  his  duty,  and  until  the  contrary  is  shown  I 
assume  that  they  have  done  their  duty.  The  law  assumes  that  every- 
body is  honest,  and  especially  does  the  law  assume  that  the  officers  of 
the  Government  and  of  the  States  do  their  duty.  I  hope  they  do.  If 
they  do  not,  they  ought  to  be  taught  to  do  it. 

During  the  discussion  of  this  act  in  the  House,  it  was  charged  by  its 
friends  that  oleomargarine  was  deleterious  to  health. 

Mr.  William  L.  Scott,  of  Pennsylvania,  said  in  the  House  May  2-t, 
1886: 

u  The  genius  which  succeeded,  by  the  application  of  chemical  fluids 
and  compounds,  in  transforming  a  mass  of  loathsome  and  unwholesome 
ingredients  into  an  article  of  food  at  a  trifling  cost,  does  not  hesitate 
to  impose  the  product  upon  the  public,  and  receive  in  the  way  of 
excessive  profit  the  difference  between  the  cost  of  the  imitation  or 
counterfeit  article  and  that  of  pure  butter." 

Mr.  A.  J.  Hopkins,  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  dairy  district 
of  Illinois,  said  (May  24,  1886): 

"During  the  Franco-Prussian  war  an  inventive  genius,  by  the  name 
of  M.  Mege,  discovered  that  the  fats  of  such  animals  as  cattle,  horses, 
and  dogs  could  be  made  into  a  substitute  for  butter.  The  war  measure 


112  OLEOMARGARINE. 

of  the  inventive  Frenchman  was  seized  and  improved  upon  by  the  ever- 
inventive  Yankee.  Our  Patent  Office  has  been  besieged  with  app-ica- 
tions  for  patents." 

After  pointing  out  the  various  articles  said  to  be  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine,  comprising  60  in  all,  Mr.  Hopkins  proceeded 
as  follows: 

"If  these  imitations  of,  and  substitutes  for,  pure  butter  were  marked 
or  labeled  what  they  really  are,  and  the  dealers  and  consumers  advised 
of  what  they  are  purchasing  and  eating,  no  complaints  would  be  made 
by  the  dairymen." 

I  am  sorry  that  they  have  now  departed  from  the  doctrine  Mr.  Hop- 
kins announced. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  1  announce  that  we  have  not.  1  will  take  that  up 
and  show  that  we  have  not. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  If  you  get  up  a  bill  providing  in  the  most  stringent 
manner  that  the  consumer  shall  be  advised  of  what  he  is  purchasing  I 
do  not  think  any  of  the  opponents  of  the  bill  will  object  to  it.  Mr. 
Hopkins  continued: 

"  The  great  wrong  is  the  fraud  and  deception  practiced  in  selling 
such  loathsome  compounds  for  genuine  butter."  *  *  "It  is  asserted 
by  the  friends  of  these  bogus  substitutes  for  butter  that  they  are 
healthy.  They  are  not.  All  kinds  of  filtlw  fats  are  used  in  their  man- 
ufacture. Animals  dying  from  all  kinds  of  diseases  are  utilized,  and 
after  going  through  their  bleaching  and  deodorizing  processes  are  man- 
ufactured into  oleomargarine  and  sold  for  pure  butter." 
"Gentlemen  of  rare  scholarship  and  scientific  attainments  have  given 
this  whole  subject  years  of  careful  thought  and  study,  and  are  unquali- 
fied in  their  statements  of  its  unwholesome  and  loathsome  character. 
Its  consumption  in  their  judgment  leads  to  insanity,  Bright's  disease, 
and  many  of  the  ailments  that  undermine  the  strongest  and  most  robust 
constitutions." 

He  did  not  disclose  the  names  of  those  u  gentlemen  of  rare  scholar- 
ship and  scientific  attainments"  who  thus  exposed  oleomargarine. 
They  probably  existed  only  in  the  minds  of  the  butter  manufacturers. 
Before  Mr.  Hopkins  closed  he  made  it  clear  that  his  chief  object  in 
favoring  the  antioleomargarine  bill  was  to  protect  the  working-man. 
He  said: 

"Has  it  come  to  this  in  America  that  the  laboring  man  must  live 
upon  adulterated  food  ?  Must  his  wife  and  family  use  for  pure  butter 
of  our  dairies  an  artificial  butter,  the  compounds  of  diseased  hogs  and 
dead  dogs  ?  " 

Mr.  Hatch,  of  Missouri,  now  deceased,  was  the  author  of  the  bill 
and  the  champion  of  the  cause  of  pure  butter.  He  was  very  pro- 
nounced in  his  views.  He  denounced  oleomargarine  as  "the  monu- 
mental fraud  of  the  nineteenth  century,"  a  sentiment  which  w;is 
received  in  the  House  with  "applause. "  He  was  willing  to  admit  that 
the  Chicago  packers  made  the  very  best  and  purest  oleomargarine  that 
is  used  in  the  United  States.  He  added: 

uBut  that  is  not  the  danger.  The  danger  is  in  the  hundred  and  one 
little  dead-animal  factories  on  the  lines  of  the  railroads,  where  they 
buy  broken-down,  diseased,  and  dead  animals  from  the  railroads;  these 
little  rendering  establishments  in  out  of  the  way  towns  and  villages 
that  simply  operate  by  purchasing  the  refuse  and  scrapings  of  the 
butcher  shops  and  making  this  oleo  oil  to  be  used  in  the  manufacture 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  113 

of  oleomargarine  and  butterine,  spreading  disease  and  destruction 
throughout  the  country. " 

He  quoted  with  approval  from  a  prominent  newspaper,  which  stated, 
among  other  things,  the  following: 

"  The  gang  of  adulterators  and  counterfeiters  who  manufacture  bogus 
butter  from  soap  grease  protest  that  the  Hatch  bill  makes  martyrs  of 
them  and  violates  their  constitutional  rights.  They  have  their  head- 
quarters in  Chicago." 

Such  were  the  arguments,  or  some  of  them,  used  fifteen  years  ago  to 
secure  this  legislation,  and  they  were  effective  at  that  time;  and  argu- 
ments of  a  similar  purport  in  many  respects  have  been  used  since  that 
time  to  secure  repressive  legislation  in  the  several  States  of  this  Union. 
But  notwithstanding  all  this  detraction,  oleomargarine  has  survived 
the  assaults  of  its  enemies  and  now  has  thes  anction  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  in  an  opinion,  which  does  that  court  great 
honor,  that  it  is  a  pure  and  a  healthful  article  of  food  and  a  legitimate 
article  of  interstate  commerce.  Such  js  the  judgment  of  the  court, 
and  that  is  the  law  of  the  land. 

Now,  if  gentlemen  desired  that  this  useful  and  nutritious  article  of 
diet  shall  be  hedged  about  with  such  inspection  laws  in  the  States  as 
will  simply  provide,  as  the  Constitution  recognizes,  that  what  is  sold 
shall  be  the  pure  article,  there  will  be  no  objection  from  the  manu- 
facturers of  oleomargarine.  They  are  willing  to  go  into  the  open  field 
of  fair  competition,  with  the  name  of  their  product  inscribed  upon 
their  banners,  and  stand  or  fall  in  the  field  of  competition  of  products 
useful  to  mankind.  Have  not  those  who  can  not  afford  to  pay  27,  28, 
29,  now  35,  cents  a  pound  for  creamery  butter  the  right  to  purchase 
an  article  at  half  that  price  if  it  can  be  produced  in  a  manner  which 
will  be  satisfactory  to  them  ?  But  gentlemen  say,  ' '  If  you  will  not 
color  it  yellow,  we  will  not  object."  We  might  just  as  well  answer 
them  by  saying,  "If  you  will  not  color  butter  yellow,  as  you  always 
do,  except  in  a  few  months  in  the  summer  time,  there  will  be  no  objec- 
tion to  that."  But  the  question  of  color  in  an  article  of  food  is  a  mat- 
ter of  taste,  solely  a  matter  of  taste,  and  all  manufacturers  of  food 
products  must  pander  to  the  tastes  of  their  customers. 

As  was  said  in  one  of  the  Latin  maxims,  "de  gustibus  non  est  dispu- 
tandum."  When  it  comes  to  a  question  of  taste,  there  is  no  discussion 
permitted.  You  can  not  reason  a  man  out  of  the  belief  that  butter 
tastes  better  when  it  is  yellow  than  when  it  is  white — there  is  no  use 
to  reason  with  him  on  the  subject — or  that  oleomargarine  tastes  better 
wrhen  it  is  yellow.  He  has  a  right  to  his  taste,  and  those  who  manu- 
facture oleomargarine  have  a  right  to  manufacture  it  in  such  a  way 
that  it  will  be  most  attractive  to  their  customers  and  that  the  retail 
dealer  can  best  dispose  of  it  to  those  who  consume  it.  When  the  man- 
ufacturer has  done  that  he  has  met  all  the  requirements  that  the  law- 
making  power  of  the  Government  should  throw  about  him.  He  is 
willing  to  go  into  the  market  with  his  article  branded,  even  its  name 
pressed  into  the  article  itself,  as  the  Wadsworth  bill  provided,  which 
was  favored  by  the  minority  of  the  House  committee.  Mark  it  in  any 
way  y°u  see  fit;  but  let  it  stand,  after  it  has  been  marked,  upon  the 
color  which  the  manufacturers  desire  it  shall  have  and  which  the  con- 
sumers desire  it  shall  have. 

A  gentleman  who  addressed  the  committee  since  these  hearings  began 
stated  that  in  the  little  State  of  Rhode  Island,  where  the  sale  of  colored 

S.  Rep.  2043 8 


114  OLEOMARGAKLNE. 

oleomargarine  is  permitted  under  restrictions  requiring  it  to  be  labeled 
and  signs  to  be  put  up  in  the  stores  that  oleomargarine  is  sold,  the 
manufacturers  did  not  offer  to  sell  this  article  in  any  other  way  or  as 
any  other  thing  than  as  oleomargarine,  and  that  on  every  counter  where 
it  was  for  sale  was  a  card  asserting  that  o-leomargarine  was  sold,  and 
in  the  windows  were  the  cards  of  Swift  and  other  firms  announcing  the 
sale  of  their  particular  product.  In  that  State  there  was  a  sale  in  the 
last  year  amounting  to  8  pounds  per  capita  of  the  whole  population. 
Do  you  bBlieve  that  the  sale  of  butter  was  interfered  with  by  this  com- 
petition ?  I  do  not.  There  is  no  means  of  telling  how  much  butter 
was  sold,  but  I  believe  those  who  desired  creameiy  and  dairy  butter 
bought  it  and  paid  the  excessive  price  for  it,  as  they  had  the  right  to  do. 

As  was  said  by  one  of  the  gentlemen  who  discussed  this  question, 
there  is  no  real  competition  in  the  market  between  creamery  butter 
and  colored  oleomargarine  when  the  customer  knows  what  he  is  buy- 
ing, and  the  opponents  of  this  bill,  therefore,  will  not  object  to  any 
reasonable  regulation  that  Cojigress  may  see  fit  to  throw  around  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  for  the  purpose  of  having  it  known  by 
the  consumer,  when  it  is  sold  to  him,  just  exactly  what  he  is  buying. 
When  you  have  done  that  you  have  exhausted  your  power  as  legislators 
to  interfere  with  the  tastes,  the  peculiarities,  and  the  wishes  of  the  con- 
sumers of  the  country,  who  constitute  the  great  body  of  our  people. 

Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  desire  to  thank  you  for  your  atten- 
tion, and  before  closing  I  wish  to  present  to  the  committee  a  state- 
ment addressed  to  the  committee  from  Mr.  Walden,  president  of  the 
Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange,  who  was  here  the  other  day  and 
desired  to  address  the  committee,  but  was  compelled  to  return.  He 
has  reduced  his  views  to  writing.  I  have  them  here  in  this  form,  and 
I  will  ask  the  committee  to  insert  them  in  the  record. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  statement  will  appear  in  the  record. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  If  any  gentleman  desires  to  ask  questions,  I  will  be 
very  glad  to  answer  as  I  may  be  able. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  have  not  stated  what  the  objections  of  the  live- 
stock growers  are  to  the  bill. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Those  were  stated 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  In  the  resolution? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  In  the  memorial  which  will  be  printed. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  will  be  printed. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  read  a  portion  of  it.  I  have  asked  the  committee  to 
embody  it  at  length,  but  I  will  briefly  state  the  objections.  They  object 
to  it  because  it  deprives  them  of  a  market  for  one  of  their  products. 
In  other  words,  the  product  of  beef  known  as  caul  fat,  which  amounts 
in  the  average  beef  to  about  58  pounds  per  steer,  is  now  or  may  be 
manufactured  into  oleo  oil,  and  if  the  whole  product  were  so  manu- 
factured there  would  be  a  large  amount — in  fact,  nearly  all  of  it — used 
for  that  purpose,  thus  increasing  the  value  of  the  caul  fat  in  the  steer 
to  the  amount  of  the  difference  between  oleo  oil  and  tallow. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Does  that  include  kidney  fat  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  includes  all  that  is  known  as  caul  fat.  I  am  not 
an  expert  as  to  the  various  fats. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Your  objection,  then,  is  not  so  much  to  what  it  will  do 
to  the  live-stock  industry  as  to  what  it  will  deprive  the  live-stock  indus- 
try of  some  time  in  the  future? 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  115 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  What  they  are  now  securing.     In  the  first  place, 
they  are  now  securing  a  market  for  a  portion- 
Mr.  GROUT.  What  portion  of  the  grand  aggregate  of  caul  fat  pro- 
duced from  the  steers  which  are  slaughtered  throughout  the  country 
is  thus  used? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  think  it  was  stated  that  about  5  per  cent  or  10  per 
cent  of  the  caul  fat  is  now  utilized  in  the  manufacture. 

Mr.  GROUT.  You  said  in  your  statement  that  if  it  was  all  so  used  it 
would  make  a  very  large  difference. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes;  a  very  large  difference. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Enough  to  float  an  empire  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  1  made  this  estimate,  but  1  have  not  the  details  of 
it — that  the  oleo  oil  actually  used  now  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomarga- 
rine increased  that  product  to  the  amount  of  $1,4:30,000  annually,  or 
on  the  production  of  the  year  1899 — 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  How  much  a  steer? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  did  not  estimate  it  in  that  way. 

Mr.  GROUT.  He  says  the  amount  now  used 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  In  1899. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Amounted  to  $1,000,000. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  $1,434,000.  That  is  my  estimate. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Did  you  say  5  per  cent  of  the  product  is  now  so 
used? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  will  not  state  what  the  percentage  is,  but  I  have  it 
in  my  notes  somewhere.  I  will  look  it  up. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  It  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  total  product 
that  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  now  bears  to  the  total  produc- 
tion of  butter? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir.  I  have  put  into  my  remarks  a  statement 
showing  the  ingredients  of  oleomargarine  as  reported  by  the  Treasury 
Department.  You  will  find  it  in  my  printed  remarks.  It  shows  the 
number  of  pounds  of  oleo  oil  and  the  number  of  pounds  of  neutral 
lard  that  were  used  during  the  year  1899. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Are  you  able  to  state  the  number  of  pounds  of  oleo  oil 
that  was  used  in  the  production  of  oleomargarine  last  year  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Will  you  give  it? 

M.  FLANDERS.  He  will  publish  that  statement. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  24,400,000  pounds. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  The  table  gives  the  "  quantities  and  kinds  of  ingre- 
dients used  in  the  production  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United  States 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1899;  also  the  percentage  each 
different  ingredient  bears  to  the  whole  quantity."  Neutral  lard, 
31,000,000  pounds;  oleo  oil,  24,000,000  pounds;  cotton-seed  oil, 
4,357,000  pounds. 

Mr.  GROUT.  What  is  the  amount  we  exported? 

^  Mr.  SPRINGER.  We  exported  142,000,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil,  I  think. 
That  is  not  taken  into  consideration  in  the  amount  that  was  used  in 
this  country. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  in  the  resolution  of  the  live-stock  association  is  it 
not  stated  that  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill  would  mean  a  damage  or 
loss  in  value  of  $3  or  $4  a  head  per  cattle? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  so  stated  I  think. 


116  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  How  do  you  figure  that,  please  ? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Was  it  not  $2  in  the  statement  made  here  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  From  $2  to  $4  in  some  statements. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  They  say  in  their  memorial: 

"In  oleomargarine  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  consumers  of  this 
country,  especially  the  working  classes,  have  a  wholesome,  nutritious, 
and  satisfactory  article  of  diet,  which  before  its  advent  they  were 
obliged,  owing  to  the  high  price  of  butter  and  their  limited  means,  to 
go  without. 

"The  'butter  fat'  of  an  average  beef  animal,  for  the  purpose  of 
making  oleomargarine,  is  worth  from  $3  to  $4  r^er  head  more  than  it 
was  before  the  advent  of  oleomargarine,  when  the  same  had  to  be  used 
for  tallow,  which  increased  value  of  the  beef  steer  has  been  added  to 
the  market  value  of  the  animal,  and  consequently  to  the  profit  of  the 
producer. 

"To  legislate  this  article  of  commerce  out  of  existence,  as  the  pas- 
sage of  this  law  would  surely  do,  would  compel  slaughterers  to  use  this 
fat  for  tallow,  and  depreciate  the  market  value  of  the  beef  cattle  of 
this  country  $3  to  $4  per  head,  which  would  entail  a  loss  on  the  pro- 
ducers of  this  country  of  millions  of  dollars." 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  amount  of  oleo  oil  used  was  24,000,000  pounds? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Valued  last  year  at  about  $2,000,000? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  were  5,000,000  head  of  cattle  slaughtered  in 
this  country  last  year. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  If  you  took  that  amount  out  of  the  use  to  which 
it  was  formerly  put,  would  not  that  make  a  difference? 

Mr.  HOARD.  The  Treasury  Department  shows  that  there  was  used 
of  oleo  oil  produced  in  this  country  24,000,000  pounds.  That  is  a 
fraction  less  than  5  pounds  of  fat  from  each  animal. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  It  takes  that  5  out  jof  the  gross  product. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  is  4.99  to  each  animal.  At  their  figures  it  would  be 
worth  about  $1  a  pound. 

Mr.  GROUT.  What  is  the  price  of  it? 

Mr.  HOARD.  Nine  cents. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  In  what  way  would  it? 

Mr.  HOARD.  Because  there  are  5,000,000  animals  slaughtered  and 
24,000,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil  used.  Divide  one  by  the  other,  and  it 
makes  4.99  pounds  to  each  animal;  45  cents  a  pound. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  do  not  think  that  is  a  fair  estimate. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  will  make  this  explanation. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  am  taking  the  amount  that  would  be  used  in  oleo- 
margarine. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  But  you  are  figuring  the  24,000,000  pounds  as 
the  entire  output  from  the  beef,  and  the  only  output  that  is  bringing 
any  money,  throwing  away  the  other  95  per  cent. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  am  figuring  as  to  relationship  and  the  worth  of  the 
oleo  oil,  and  it  does  not  square  with  that  live  stock  statement. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  will  answer  that. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  is  overestimated. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Knight,  in  his  statement  before  the  committee 
of  the  House  (pages  26  and  27  of  the  House  hearing),  endeavored  to 
expose  the  figures  used  by  Swift  &  Co.  in  regard  to  this  subject.  I 


OLEOMARGARINE.  117 

did  not  prepare  those  figures,  and  I  do  not  know  who  did,  but  it 
appears  to  me  from  an  examination  of  both  of  those  statements  that 
the  gentlemen  and  those  who  prepared  these  estimates  are  both  out  of 
the  way  in  their  estimates  upon  this  subject.  In  other  words,  they 
have,  by  a  loose  manner  of  expression,  failed  to  state  exactly  what  the 
truth  is  and  what  the  difference  would  be.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
proper  statement  is  this:  We  must  go  for  the  amount  of  oleo  oil  that 
was  consumed  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  to  the  Treasury 
statistics  in  order  to  ascertain  the  exact  truth.  That  does  not  embrace 
the  amount  of  oleo  oil  exported,  and  a  great  deal  more  is  used  for 
export  than  is  used  in  this  country. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  has  this  to  do  with  the  oleo  oil  that  is  exported? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Nothing,  except  that  the  use  of  oleo  throughout  the 
world  has  created  a  demand  for  it,  and  a  portion  of  that  demand  is  in 
this  country.  Now,  if  all  of  the  caul  fat  in  the  beeves  that  were 
slaughtered  during  the  }7ear  had  been  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleo- 
margarine in  this  country,  it  would  have  amounted  to  the  figures  stated 
by  Mr.  Swift  in  his  circular,  which  are  practically  the  ones  stated  in 
the  resolution  and  memorial  of  the  cattlemen. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Is  there  anything  in  the  Swift  letter  to  Congress  indi- 
cating that  it  was  not  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  say  that  1  think  he  was  mistaken  in  placing  it 
upon  that  basis,  but  1  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
the  fact  that  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  man  to  tell  what  would  be  the 
loss  to  the  cattlemen  of  this  country  by  reason  of  the  destruction  of 
oleomargarine  as  an  article  of  commerce. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  is  beyond  the  power  of  man  to  tell  what  the  destruc- 
tion to  the  butter  industry  is  by  this  business. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  You  can  guess  at  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Now,  Judge — 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Let  me  finish.  You  can  not  tell.  Why?  The«re 
was  already  created,  by  the  amount  of  oleo  oil  used  in  the  actual  pro- 
duction of  oleomargarine  in  this  country,  a  demand  for  24,000,000 
pounds  of  their  product  which  would  not  have  existed  if  oleomargarine 
had  not  been  manufactured  in  this  country.  To  that  much  we  will  all 
agree. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  There  is  that  much  increased  demand  for  their  stock. 

Mr.  HOARD.  With  a  corresponding  destruction  on  the  other  side  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Excuse  me  for  one  moment.  There  is  that  large 
increase.  Now,  gentlemen,  how  can  you  tell  what  effect  that  increased 
demand  for  the  24,000,000  pounds  had  upon  the  price  of  all  the  other 
products  of  animal  fats?  Who  can  tell  that?  Nobody  can  tell.  But 
it  is  my  opinion  that  the  pending  bill  and  the  restrictive  laws  in  32 
States  in  this  Union  will  injure  the  cattle  and  hog  industry  to  the 
extent  of  many  millions  of  dollars  annually,  and  that  injury  will 
reach  the  extent  stated  in  the  memorial  of  the  National  Live  Stock 
Association. 

Let  me  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  prices  of  agricultural 
products  in  this  country  are  determined  by  a  number  of  causes,  and 
the  man  who  operates  on  the  board  of  trade  is  looking  even  to  a  cold 
snap  or  a  little  drought  to  see  whether  corn  and  wheat  and  other  such 
products  will  go  up  or  down.  Why?  Because  if  the  weather  is  good 
and  the  farmers  have  good  crops,  there  will  be  low  prices;  and  if  there 


118  OLEOMARGARINE. 

is  bad  weather  and  short  crops,  there  will  be  high  prices.  By  the 
demand  for  24,000,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil  in  the  manufacture  of  oleo- 
margarine you.  have  taken  that  much  of  the  product  and  raised  it  in 
price  from  6  cents  to  about  10  cents  a  pound.  You  have  increased  at 
least  the  demand  for  this  kind  of  product,  and  by  increasing  the  demand 
for  that  much  of  the  product  you  have  raised  the  price  of  the  whole 
product  to  some  extent.  To  just  what  extent  it  would  take  a  board  of 
trade  man  to  tell,  and  he  might  make  a  mistake  and  get  caught  in  the 
deal.  But  it  does  have  some  effect. 

Now,  suppose  you  stop  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  this 
country  and  throw  the  24,000,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil  back  into  the  con- 
dition of  tallow,  to  what  extent  will  you  depress  the  price  of  the  whole 
product  of  tallow  in  the  United  States  ?  Nobody  can  tell.  But  you 
will  depress  it;  you  will  depress  it  something,  depress  it  even  to  the 
amount  of  several  points  at  least,  as  they  say  upon  the  board  of  trade, 
by  reason  of  throwing  24,000,000  pounds  upon  the  market  and  putting 
it  into  tallow,  increasing  the  product  that  much  and  depressing  the  price. 

So  when  you  come  to  estimate  the  loss  or  gain  to  those  engaged  in 
agriculture  by  reason  of  this  legislation,  it  is  in  a  great  measure  specu- 
lative. What  is  known  is — and  that  is  the  fact  to  which  1  call  atten- 
tion— that  there  was,  under  all  the  restrictive  legislation  of  the  several 
States  of  this  Union,  amounting  to  prohibition  in  32  States,  a  demand 
for  24,000,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil  and  31,000,000  pounds  of  leaf  lard,  the 
product  of  the  hog,  and  this  large  demand,  if  taken  away,  would  depress 
these  various  articles  in  the  market,  and  nobody  can  tell  exactly  where 
it  would  land. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question.  Is  oleo  oil  used 
for  any  purpose  other  than  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Some  of  the  gentlemen  engaged  in  that  manufacture 
can  tell. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  will  say  that  it  is  not.  I  am  with  Armour  &  Co. 
I  should  like  to  bring  out  a  point  here  in  regard  to  oleo  oil.  If  you 
destroy  the  oleomargarine  industry  you  naturally  place  a  ban  on  our 
oleo  oil  which  will  necessarily  have  a  very  injurious  effect  on  the  for- 
eign market.  It  will  perhaps  also  place  a  ban  on  our  oil,  and  we  would 
lose  the  use  of  24,000,000  pounds  in  the  United  States  and  perhaps  the 
sale  of  142,000,000  pounds  in  foreign  countries. 

Mr.  HOARD.  That  is  speculative. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Everyone  here  is  familiar  with  the  agrarian  spirit 
which  predominates  in  Europe  at  present.  They  have  not  only  tried 
to  restrict  the  importation  of  cotton-seed  oil,  but  of  meats  and  many 
other  agricultural  products. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  While  I  can  not  say,  and  no  other  man  can  sa}^,  just 
how  much  the  price  of  cattle  would  be  depreciated  by  destroying  this 
industry,  or  how  much  it  would  be  appreciated  by  repealing  the  restric- 
tive State  laws  and  letting  oleomargarine  go  free,  as  other  food  prod- 
ucts do,  yet  I  know  it  would  depreciate  animal  fats  in  the  one  case, 
and  it  would  appreciate  in  the  other  very  largely  if  this  article  should 
be  left  in  the  same  condition  that  other  food  products  are  left. 

I  called  your  attention  this  morning  to  the  possibility,  under  the 
amount  consumed  in  Rhode  Island,  for  a  demand  for  oleomargarine  in 
this  country  of  500,000,000  pounds  a  year.  Suppose  that  existed 
instead  of  the  demand  for  100,000,000  pounds  that  existed  last  year, 
how  much  that  would  appreciate  the  price  of  all  the  products  of  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  119 


cattle  of  the  country  it  is  impossible  to  state.  Yet  you  are  not  only 
asked  to  pass  laws  here  to  take  away  the  demand  for  the  24,000,000 
pounds,  but  you  want  to  perpetuate  the  laws  in  32  States  which  destroy 
the  prospect  which  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  and  which  the 
growers  of  hogs  and  cattle  have  of  an  increased  demand  in  this  country 
in  the  near  future  of  500,000,000  pounds  a  year.  The  people  of  this 
country  who  consume  food  products  have  a  right  to  indulge  their 
tastes,  if  they  want  to,  in  that  direction,  and  it  is  depriving  the  people 
of  the  comforts  and  necessaries  of  life  to  say  they  shall  not  have  oleo- 
margarine in  a  colored  state,  if  they  want  to  buy  it  in  that  state  and 
know  what  they  are  buying  at  the  time. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  not  taken  up  your  time  in  regard  to  the  coloring 
matter,  or  a  great  many  other  subjects  that  have  been  before  you  here- 
tofore. I  am  not  an  expert  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine.  I 
have  no  connection  with  any  manufacturing  establishment.  What  I 
objected  to  in  regard  to  the  remarks  of  Governor  Hoard  was  that  he 
placed  all  the  opponents  of  this  bill  in  what  is  called  the  oleomarga- 
rine trust.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  any  trust.  I  am  not  in  any 
trust.  I.  am  here  to  speak  for  those  who  raise  cattle  and  hogs,  and 
who  ask  the  Congress  that  their  product  shall  not  be  legislated  against 
and  discriminated  against  by  Congressional  legislation.  They  repre- 
sent a  vast  population  in  the  United  States.  Their  property  represents 
a  capital  of  $600,000,000. 

They  have  never  before  asked  to  be  heard  as  a  national  association 
before  this  committee  or  before  any  other  committee  of  Congress. 
They  now  ask  to  be  heard,  and  they  ask  that  their  memorial  which  I 
have  presented  here  to-day  shall  be  considered  fairly  and  that  they 
may  be  placed,  by  the  legislation  of  Congress,  upon  an  equal  footing 
with  the  other  farmers  of  the  country,  for  they  are  farmers  and  have 
the  right  to  sell  their  products  in  the  markets  where  they  can  get  the 
most  for  them,  and  not  be  hampered  by  restrictive  legislation,  either 
by  Congress  or  by  the  States,  that  will  destroy  in  a  measure  a  portion 
of  the  value  of  the  products  which  they  are  engaged  in  raising. 

I  thank  you,  gentlemen. 

STATEMENT    OF    G.    M.    WALDEN,  PRESIDENT    OF    THE    KANSAS 
CITY  LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  COMMITTEE:  Business 
engagements  of  great  importance  prevent  my  appearing  before  your 
honorable  body  in  person  to  present  the  protest  of  the  Kansas  City 
Live  Stock  Exchange  against  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill,  the  pro- 
visions of  which  you  are  familiar  with.  Arguments  have  been  pre- 
sented before  you  from  the  allied  interests  for  and  against,  with  the 
exception  of  the  live-stock  commission  merchant. 

The  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange  is  composed  of  300  members, 
90  per  cent  of  whom  are  engaged  in  buying  and  selling  live  stock,  and 
by  their  zeal  and  enterprise  have  succeeded  in  building  the  second 
largest  live-stock  market  of  the  world.  During  the  year  just  closed 
there  were  received  1,970,000  head  of  cattle,  69  per  cent  of  which  were 
killing  grades;  50  per  cent  of  these  killing  grades  furnish  the  butter 
fats  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  19  per  cent  represent- 
ing the  more  common  beef  and  "canner"  grades,  which  furnish  an 
insignificant  per  cent  of  butter  fat.  The  remaining  31  per  cent  are 


120  OLEOMARGARINE. 

shipped  and  driven  back  to  the  grazing  lands,  feed  lots,  or  are  used 
for  breeding  purposes,  with  the  exception  of  a  slight  fraction  known 
as  milch  stock.  Ultimately,  however,  all  find  their  way  to  the  block, 
which  would  lead  us  to  the  proper  basis  to  figure  from,  viz,  100  per 
cent. 

While  statistics  are  dry  and  uninteresting  reading,  if  correct  they 
silence  all  argument.  We  propose  to  show  to  this  honorable  com- 
mittee the  tremendous  loss  which  will  accrue  to  the  live-stock  indus- 
try of  this  country,  especially  the  cattle-growing  States  of  the  great 
West,  North,  and  Southwest,  if  this  Grout  bill  becomes  a  law  and  how 
such  loss  affects  the  live-stock  commission  merchant. 

Through  the  members  of  this  exchange  nearly  $60,000,000  are  loaned 
to  the  men  engaged  in  this  great  industry  in  the  territory  tributary  to 
this  market.  The  greater  proportion  of  this  enormous  sum  of  money 
does  not  belong  to  the  men  engaged  in  the  commission  business,  but  to 
the  financial  institutions  in  every  section  of  the  country.  True,  the 
commission  merchant  makes  the  loans  and  sells  the  paper,  which  is 
negotiable,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  coast,  with  his,  the  com- 
mission merchant's,  indorsement,  accompanied  with  the  usual  safe- 
guard of  mortgages  on  cattle.  Any  depreciation  of  values  from  any 
cause  may  result  in  loss  to  the  holders  of  the  paper.  This  enormous 
sum  of  $60,000,000  controls  about  2,000,000  cattle,  whose  ultimate 
destination  is  the  market.  Competition  has,  from  many  causes,  grown 
so  sharp  in  the  live-stock  commission  business  that  great  risks  are 
taken.  Only  a  few  years  ago  freight  and  pasturage  money  was  all  that 
was  required  to  control  a  good  share  of  what  we  term  "range"  busi- 
ness, but  lately  the  cattle  raisers  and  speculators  from  the  cattle- 
producing  States  of  Colorado,  New  Mexico,  Arizona,  and  Texas,  who 
move  their  herds  to  the  grazing  lands  of  the  Territories  and  Kansas, 
demand  a  very  large  percentage  of  the  purchase  price  of  cattle,  and  in 
many  instances  the  full  cost. 

We  now  come  to  the  point  where  we,  the  live-stock  commission  mer- 
chants, suffer.  In  the  event  of  the  Grout  bill  becoming  a  law  our 
security  would  be  depreciated  just  $2  per  head,  whereas,  under  the 
strain  of  competition,  we  have  loaned  up  to  the  full  value  of  cattle 
already.  We  should  also  mention  that  cattle  deals  are  not  closed  up 
each  year  they  are  made.  Renewals  are  granted,  loans  extended  by 
reason  of  unfavorable  conditions  for  fattening  cattle,  such  as  crop  fail- 
ures, drought  in  the  grazing  districts,  or  unusual  severity  of  the  win- 
ters. During  the  winter  of  1898  20  per  cent  of  all  cattle  in  winter 
range  districts  were  frozen  to  death.  So  you  can  readily  see  we  have 
enough  of  the  element  of  loss  to  contend  against  without  the  Govern- 
ment permitting  legislation  that  will  make  an  additional  burden  of  $2 
per  head  loss. 

While  this  market  is  the  "open  door,"  the  very  threshold,  of  the  great 
cattle-producing  States  and  Territories,  the  same  conditions  governing 
the  details  of  our  business  is  proportionately  true  of  every  market  of 
the  United  States;  and  not  alone  does  this  bill  propose  to  kill  an  indus- 
try that  benefits  the  producer  and  the  packing  industries,  but  every 
butcher  who  slaughters  his  own  cattle  in  the  United  States;  for  he 
ships  his  butter  fat  to  the  nearest  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine, 
which,  if  legislated  out  of  business,  goes  into  candles  and  boot  grease, 
and  he  must  charge  the  consumer  a  higher  price  for  his  beef  in  order 
to  offset  the  loss  on  butter  fat. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  121 

During  the  year  just  closing  there  were  received  at  this  market 
3,100,000  hogs,  90  per  cent  of  which  were  slaughtered  here  and  the 
remainder  shipped  to  other  markets.  The  loss  to  this  industry  if  the 
Grout  bill  become  a  law,  figured  by  the  same  experts  on  cattle,  is  20 
cents  per  head.  A  very  large  percentage  of  this  trade  is  controlled  bj- 
commission  money,  and  the  same  depreciation  of  security  relatively 
obtains  as  in  loans  on  cattle.  Summing  up  the  actual  loss  to  the  live- 
stock industry  of  the  United  States  if  the  Grout  bill  pass,  it  means  $2 
per  head  on  50  per  cent  of  the  killing  grades  of  cattle  and  20  cents  per 
head  on  85  per  cent  of  the  hogs  slaughtered.  It  would  take  too  much 
of  the  valuable  time  of  your  honorable  body  to  make  a  detailed  state- 
ment of  the  immense  loss,  but  it  is  appalling. 

In  closing,  we  desire  to  voice  the  sentiment  that  we  regard  this  bill 
hurtful,  vicious,  and  intended  to  kill  one  great  and  beneficial  industry 
to  build  up  and  fatten  another  whose  business  during  the  year  just 
closed  has  eclipsed  all  former  years  in  prosperity.  We  further  believe 
that  if  this  un-American  measure  is  forced  upon  the  people  a  panic 
will  ensue  in  the  live-stock  industry  of  the  United  States  most  dis- 
astrous; declines  will  immediately  follow,  tending  to  disrupt  the  whole 
system  of  trade  as  it  relates  to  the  live-stock  industry.  But  we  have 
faith  that  this  honorable  body  will  report  unfavorably.  If  to  the  con- 
trary, the  great  court  of  justice  of  the  whole  people,  the  United  States 
Senate,  will  not  consent  to  deprive  the  vast  army  of  the  poor,  the 
great  majority  of  the  American  people,  the  substantial  middle  class, 
even  the  wealthy,  of  purchasing  a  pure,  wholesome  food  product. 

I  thank  you,  gentlemen. 

G.  M.  WALDEN, 
President  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange. 

KANSAS  CITY,  Decembw  31,  1900. 


STATEMENT  OF  GEORGE  L.  FLANDERS. 

Mr.  George  L.  Flanders,  assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  appeared  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
am  a  little  surprised  at  the  length  of  the  argument  of  the  eminent 
gentleman  on  the  other  side.  He  dwells  entirely  upon  the  proposition 
that  there  is  nothing  involved  here  but  a  financial  question.  I  come 
here  representing  the  department  of  agriculture  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  and  there  we  feel  that  we  are  protecting  the  consuming  public, 
and  we  believe  that  they  are  a  great  element  in  this  country.  We 
believe  that  this  business  thrives  upon  fraud,  and  that  the  great  con- 
suming public  are  the  ones  that  are  defrauded. 

In  1878  it  appeared  in  the  State  of  New  York  that  oleomargarine 
was  being  sold,  and  sold  as  butter.  It  was  thought  then  that  the  State 
would  try  to  regulate  the  matter.  It  passed  a  statute  that  the  goods 
might  be  sold,  but  should  be  branded  as  such.  That  law  proved  inef- 
fective, and  in  1880  the  State  passed  another  act  providing  that  when 
sold  it  should  be  branded  as  oleomargarine.  That  act,  although  more 
restrictive,  proved  ineffective;  and  in  1882  the  State  passed  another 
law  more  restrictive,  and  that  failed  to  produce  a  result,  and,  finally, 
in  1884  it  passed  an  act  providing  oleomargarine  should  not  be  sold  as 
a  substitute  for  butter.  That  act  was  declared  unconstitutional  by  our 


122  OLEOMARGARINE. 

State  courts.  In  1885  the  State  passed  a  law  providing  it  should  not 
be  sold  in  imitation  or  semblance  of  butter,  bo  much  for  the  propo- 
sition that  they  would  like  to  stand  out  before  the  world  and  sell  these 
goods  for  what  they  are.  There  is  not  one  solitary  word  of  truth  in 
it  from  the  standpoint  of  our  experience  in  the  State  of  New  York. 

For  nearly  seventeen  years  1  have  seen  this  work  go  on.  From  the 
city  of  Chicago  last  year  several  hundred  tubs  came  into  the  State  of 
New  York  without  the  national  stamp;  not  a  thing  on  them  would 
indicate  that  the  five  tacks  had  ever  been  in  the  tub  as  required  by  hi\v, 
and  it  was  sold  as  renovated  butter  and  branded  as  such.  It  was  traced 
back  to  Chicago  by  our  detectives  and  traced  to  one  house  there  whose 
representative,  I  am  told,  is  here  to-day. 

Let  me  modify  that  statement  by  saying  this:  Our  detective  went 
back  there  and  traced  the  goods  as  best  he  could.  It  was  reported  to 
the  National  Government.  They  seized  the  goods  and  sold  them  in 
Detroit,  and  my  informant  told  me  it  was  traced  to  dangerously  close 
proximity  to  a  certain  oleomargarine  manufactory.  Our  detective 
reported  that  a  person,  said  to  represent  Braun  &  Fitts,  appeared  and 
gave  bail  for  the  defendants  and  otherwise  interested  himself  in  their 
behalf.  The  indications  pointed  to  that  manufactory.  But,  be  that 
as  it  may,  whichever  one  of  the  concerns  it  came  from,  it  came  in  car- 
load lots,  in  semblance  of  butter,  with  not  the  iota  of  an  intention  on 
the  face  of  it  to  comply  with  the  State  or  national  law,  and  a  violation 
of  both  of  them. 

Now,  sir,  an  argument  was  made  as  many  as  fifteen  years  ago  before 
the  governor  of  the  State  of  New  York,  wherein  these  people  said, 
"Let  us  sell  oleomargarine  for  what  it  is,  and  we  will  do  it."  We 
replied,  "For  six  years  we  have  tried  to  let  you  sell  it  for  what  it  is, 
and  you  would  not  do  it.  Now  you  must  be  made  to  be  honest  with 
the  people."  That  was  the  experience  in  Ohio,  Iowa,  Pennsylvania, 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  and  all  the 
States  of  the  32  which  have  passed  such  laws,  as  I  understand  it. 
New  York  and  the  other  States  passed  these  laws  because  forced  to 
do  it  to  protect  the  consuming  public. 

After  that  we  had  our  litigation,  and  the  law  under  question  went  to 
the  court  of  appeals  of  our  State,  and  in  the  case  known  as  the  People 
v.  Arenburg  the  law  was  declared  to  be  constitutional.  The  Massa- 
chusetts law  wTas  declared  constitutional.  The  Pennsylvania  law  was 
declared  unconstitutional.  Finally  a  case  was  made  up  which  went 
from  Massachusetts,  which  was  discussed  here  to-day,  and  I  was  aston- 
ished at  the  discussion  and  conclusion  coming  from  the  gentleman  it 
did.  The  conclusion  he  drew  is,  in  my  judgment,  absolutely  wrong. 
What  did  the  Plumley  case  involve?  He  said  had  the  pleadings  been 
right  he  thought  the  decision  would  have  been  different.  He  said  it 
did  not  appear  in  the  pleadings,  as  I  understand  it,  that  that  was  an 
original  imported  package  of  oleomargarine  on  which  had  been  paid 
the  duties  as  required  by  the  national  law. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  said  it  did. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Very  well.  I  did  not  so  understand  you;  and  now  I 
do  not  understand  what  could  have  been  your  thought  when  you  agreed 
that  the  decision  would  have  been  different  under  certain  conditions 
which  you  seemed  to  think  should  have  prevailed.  In  my  judgment, 
the  case  contained  all  the  necessary  and  proper  questions  of  fact,  and 
was  well  presented  and  considered  by  the  court.  As  to  the  particular 


OLEOMAKGARINE.  123 

question  which  I  understood  you  to  say  was  not  in  the  case,  and  should 
have  been,  viz,  "that  the  goods  were  sent  into  the  State  in  the  origi- 
nal importer's  package,  and  that  the  manufacturer  and  importer  and 
petitioner  had  complied  with  all  the  requirements  of  the  law  of  Con- 
gress relative  to  oleomargarine,"  permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  in  the  case  as  reported  in  155  United  States  Supreme 
Court  Report,  that  among  the  statement  of  facts  as  agreed  to  in  the 
case  appears  the  following  statement: 

That  the  article  sold  was  sent  by  the  manufacturers  thereof  in  the  State  of  Illinois 
to  the  petitioner,  their  agent  in  Massachusetts,  and  was  sold  by  him  in  the  original 
package,  and  that  in  respect  to  the  article  sold  the  importers  and  the  petitioners  had 
complied  with  all  the  requirements  of  the  act  of  Congress  regulating  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine, and  it  was  marked  and  distinguished  by  all  the  marks,  words,  and  stamps 
required  of  oleomargarine  by  the  laws  of  this  Commonwealth. 

That  being  so,  it  was  an  original  importer's  package,  transported 
from  one  State  to  another,  sold  there  in  defiance  of  State  law;  and  the 
only  question  was,  Could  the  law  be  maintained  on  any  principle  what- 
soever ? 

Now,  prior  to  this  time  the  decisions  of  United  States  courts  had 
been  to  the  effect  that  articles  of  commerce  in  original  packages  could 
be  sold  in  the  State  irrespective  of  the  State  law  except  in  the  case  of 
In  re  Rahrea.  The  question  was  presented  in  Leisy  v.  Hardin  as  to 
whether  or  not  an  importer's  original  package  could  be  sold  in  a  State 
in  violation  of  the  laws  passed  under  the  police  power.  That  case  was 
tried.  It  went  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
court  said  that  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  was  one  of  the  powers 
granted  by  the  Constitution  to  the  National  Government  and  could  not 
be  exercised  by  a  State ;  and  the  State  law  was  declared  unconstitu- 
tional as  to  the  package  in  question. 

Immediately  Mr.  Wilson  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
a  bill  providing  that  whenever  such  goods  were  transported  from  one 
State  into  another  they  should  immediately  upon  entering  a  State 
become  subject  to  the  State  laws,  irrespective  of  the  fact  that  they 
were  in  the  original  package,  in  the  same  manner  and  to  the  same  effect 
as  if  produced  in  the  State.  The  liquor  men  said,  "We  will  test  that; 
that  law  is  unconstitutional;  it  is  a  regulation  of  commerce  between 
the  States  by  a  State;  that  is  a  power  which  is  given  to  Congress,  and 
Congress  can  not  delegate  it  back  to  the  State."  That  was  the  ques- 
tion involved  in  In  re  Rahrer  (140  U.  S.).  The  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  in  its  opinion  in  that  case,  said  that  the  enactment  of 
the  so-called  Wilson  law  was  a  proper  exercise  of  the  power  granted 
in  the  Constitution,  and  that  the  law  was  constitutional. 

Now,  sir,  any  man  that  should  question  the  right  of  the  National 
Government  to  exercise  the  power  given  in  the  first  section  of  .this 
bill,  in  view  of  that  decision,  passes  my  comprehension.  In  that  decision 
(In  re  Rahrer)  the  court  practically  said  that  the  Government  might, 
by  virtue  of  that  clause  in  the  Constitution,  say  to  a  State,  "  When  you 
pass  a  law  relating  to  goods  produced  in  the  State,  it  shall  apply  to 
all  goods  coming  into  the  State,  whether  they  come  in  original  pack- 
ages tfr  not." 

I  want  to  go  back  to  the  proposition  as  to  why  that  clause  was  put 
into  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  A  careful  reading  of  the 
discussion  at  the  time  it  was  adopted  will  show  you  that  it  was  thought 
at  that  time  by  the  f  miners  of  the  Constitution  that  it  would  not  be 


124  OLEOMARGARINE. 

well  to  let  Minnesota  (not  in  those  words,  but  in  principle)  say  to  Ver- 
mont, "  Because  you  exclude  our  wheat  we  will  exclude  your  dairy 
products,"  because  the  States  of  the  Union  might  then  build  fences 
around  themselves,  to  the  detriment  of  the  general  welfare.  u  We  will 
put  the  power  in  the  National  Government;"  in  other  words,  fix  it 
so  that  a  State  can  not  say  that  a  citizen  outside  of  the  State  shall  not 
have  the  same  commercial  rights  her  citizens  do  inside.  But  I  do  not 
believe  it  was  ever  contemplated  for  one  moment  that  that  power, 
granted  in  that  way,  should  work  out  this  result — that  people  in  outside 
States  should  have  rights  in  the  markets  of  a  State  that  the  citizens 
inside  do  not  have. 

These  States  have  done  what  they  have  done  by  virtue  of  the  police 
power.  What  is  that?  It  is  the  power  left  in  the  State  to  legislate 
along  lines  to  protect  the  health,  the  morals,  and  the  lives  of  the  peo- 
ple. Now,  by  virtue  of  the  police  power,  and  under  no  other  pretext 
whatever,  have  these  33  States  passed  such  laws.  They  now  say  to  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  one  instance  where  those  police  laws 
have  been  outraged,  "  You  have  remedied  the  difficulty  by  saying  that 
the  original  package  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  laws  as  goods  made 
within  the  States.  We  come  to  you  by  virtue  of  the  decision  in  In  re 
Rahrer  and  by  virtue  of  the  action  of  the  Wilson  bill,  and  say,  do  like 
wise  relative  to  oleomargarine.  We  are  not  asking  you  to  aid  us  to 
do  something  to  a  person  outside  of  our  State  that  we  do  not  do  to  our 
own  citizens.  We  simply  say  to  you,  we  do  not  allow  our  citizens  to 
be  imposed  upon  by  our  own  citizens;  help  us  so  that  people  outside 
can  not  impose  upon  our  citizens." 

Now,  if  the  argument  which  I  propose  to  present  to  you  later,  rela- 
tive to  the  healthf ulness  of  these  goods,  is  sound,  for  I  propose  to  give 
you  instances  showing  that  this  business  thrives  upon  fraud,  then  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  argument  is  almost  conclusive  that  you  should 
help  us  as  asked  in  this  bill.  The  Plumley  decision  was  simply  a 
majority  decision,  and  we  were  afraid  that  the  conditions  might  even- 
tually be  such  that  it  would  be  reversed.  We  had  our  eyes  upon  the 
compass  in  all  directions  to  see  what  would  come  next,  and  out  of 
Pennsylvania  came  a  case  known  as  the  Schollenberger  case.  It  went 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  the  oleo  people 
secured  a  favorable  decision  in  that  case.  What  was  the  difference 
between  the  two  cases  ?  I  know  it  was  heralded  all  over  the  country 
that  it  was  a  reversal  of  the  Plumley  case,  but  I  say  to  you  it  was 
not,  in  my  judgment,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  certain  judges  in 
certain  localities  have  so  said  to  the  contrary.  It  was  an  original 
package  of  oleomargarine,  but  it  did  not  appear  to  the  court  that  it 
was  colored  in  imitation  or  semblance  of  butter.  That  element  was  in 
the  Plumley  case,  but  not  in  the  Schollenberger  case,  making  it  plainly 
a  different  case.  My  friend  seems  to  think  that  the  Schollenberger 
case  reversed  the  other  case,  but  I  read  from  Mr.  Justice  Peckham's 
opinion: 

4 '  Nor  is  the  question  determined  adversely  to  this  view  in  the  case 
of  Plumley  v.  Massachusetts,  155  U.  S.,  462.  The  statute  in  that  case 
prevented  the  sale  of  this  substance  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  pro- 
duced from  pure,  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  the  same,  and  the 
statute  contained  a  proviso  that  nothing  therein  should  be  4  construed 
to  prohibit  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  a  separate  or 
distinct  form  and  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its 


OLEOMARGARINE.  125 

real  character,  free  from  coloration  or  ingredients  that  cause  it  to  look 
like  butter.'  This  court  held  that  a  conviction  under  that  statute  for 
having  sold  an  article  known  as  oleomargarine,  not  produced  from 
unadulterated  milk  or  cream,  but  manufactured  in  imitation  of  yellow 
butter  produced  from  pure,  unadulterated  milk  or  cream,  was  valid." 

The  judge  said  that  that  decision  was  not  adverse  to  the  decision  in 
the  Schollenberger  case.  We  know  it  did  not  appear  in  the  case  that 
it  was  a  semblance  of  butter,  but  it  did  in  the  other  case,  and  therein 
lies  the  distinction;  and  if  those  two  decisions  mean  anything  at  all, 
they  mean  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  put  its  brand  upon  oleomarga- 
rine, colored  in  imitation  or  semblance  of  butter,  as  an  imitation  and  a 
fraud  and  a  counterfeit.  They  did  so  hold,  and  so  did  two  of  the  State 
courts  of  last  resort,  and  if.  they  have  virtually  placed  the  brand  of 
counterfeit  upon  it,  then  we  come  to  you  and  ask  you  to  assist  us,  to 
the  end  that  the  fraud  in  this  business  may  be  wiped  out. 

We  will  take  the  question  of  competition  for  a  moment.  I  do  not 
care  to  discuss  the  other  cases  discussed  by  my  friend,  for  they  are 
discussed  by  the  court  in  arriving  at  the  conclusions  in  these  last  two 
cases  and  disposed  of.  They  are  immaterial  here.  The  shoddy  mat- 
ter, given  by  Judge  Springer,  would  not  come  within  the  police  power 
of  a  State,  as  it  involves  simply  a  commercial  question.  A  prophet 
or  a  philosopher  can  be  a  prophet  or  a  philosopher  still  with  shoddy  on 
his  back,  but  he  can  not  be  either  without  nourishment  in  his  stomach 
or  with  something  in  his  stomach  furnishing  only  half  the  nourishment 
that  he  ought  to  have.  You  must  feed  nutritiously  or  you  can  not 
produce  good  men  and  women.  Somebody  has  said,  u  Show  me  what  a 
people  eat  and  I  will  tell  you  what  they  are. "  Another  has  said, 4 '  Think 
of  the  chemical  work  whereby  food  is  put  in  the  human  stomach  and 
produces  the  divine  tragedy  of  Hamlet."  You  must  look  after  the 
nourishment  and  health  of  your  people  if  you  would  have  a  strong 
nation. 

Now,  how  about  the  question  of  competition?  In  the  first  place, 
let  us  go  back  to  the  color  of  butter.  The  natural  color  of  butter, 
when  the  cow  is  living  upon  nature's  food,  is  a  rich  yellow.  Butter 
has  been  that  color  so  long  that  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to 
the  contrary.  When  these  people  back  in  the  seventies  started  to 
make  oleomargarine,  what  did  they  do?  They  undertook  to  make  it 
look  like  our  commodity.  Is  that  all?  No.  In  taste  and  smell  they 
attempted  to  make  it  like  our  commodity,  so  that  every  feature  would 
deceive  every  sense  that  man  could  possibly  apply  to  the  commodity. 
Were  they  content  with  that?  No,  sir.  They  came  into  the  market 
and  sold  it  for  butter. 

Now,  I  am  not  guessing  or  talking  at  random,  for  in  1884  and  1885, 
when  we  commenced  to  enforce  these  laws,  you  were  selling,  or  those 
who  were  in  the  same  business  that  you  are  in  to-day  were  selling,  in  the 
State  of  New  York  15,000,000  pounds,  and  they  told  the  same  story 
then  as  glibly  as  you  tell  it  now,  that  they  wanted  to  sell  it  for  what  it 
was.  Our  men  went  into  the  city  of  New  York,  and  if  they  went  into 
a  store  where  they  were  known  and  called  for  butter  they  got  butter; 
but  just  as  soon  as  they  put  on  the  garments  of  longshoremen,  which 
they  did  in  a  great  many  instances,  to  see  what  the  facts  were,  and 
took  a  basket  upon  their  arms  and  bought  a  quarter  of  a  pound  of  tea 
and  a  loaf  of  bread,  they  got  oleomargarine.  This  is  no  fanciful  dream. 
It  is  a  fact. 


126  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Take  that  into  consideration,  and  then  take  into  consideration  the 
fact  that  these  people  send  out  all  over  the  country — I  will  modify  that 
a  little;  I  will  say  that  they  send  into  the  State  of  New  York,  and  1 
know  whereof  I  talk — agents  who  try  to  induce  our  people  to  enter  into 
the  business  of  selling  those  goods;  and  we  are  told  that  they  promise 
to  indemnify  them  against  the  State  law.  Mind  you  how  I  put  it— 
that  we  are  told  by  parties  who  have  been  approached  that  they 
offered  to  indemnify  them.  When  you  think  of  that  state  of  facts  as 
I  have  given  it,  can  you  listen  with  equanimity  to  the  statements  made 
here  that  there  is  a  demand  for  those  goods  ?  There  is  no  demand  in 
the  State  of  New  York  for  oleomargarine  by  any  consumer. 

They  talk  about  it  as  the  poor  man's  goods,  and  yet  not  long  since, 
when  the  great  strike  was  on  in  Pennsylvania,  which  we  knew  of 
all  over  the  country  by  the  results  it  produced,  the  papers,  looking 
into  the  facts  and  trying  to  show  how  the  poor  man  had  to  work  prac- 
tically for  nothing— $200  or  $300  a  year — gave  us  a  schedule  of  the 
goods  the  laborers  purchased  and  the  prices  paid,  and  the  price  for 
oleomargarine  on  that  list  was  30  cents  a  pound;  and  there  is  not 
a  farmer  in  the  United  States  who  would  not  have  been  glad  to 
furnish  butter  all  the  year  round  for  25  cents.  And  yet  they  call  it 
the  poor  man's  butter.  The  poor  man  in  our  State  does  not  want  it. 
If  he  does,  he  wants  it  for  what  it  is  and  at  its  true  value. 

The  great  difficulty  is  they  are  imitating  our  goods.  We  have  used, 
or  the  butter  people  have  used,  that  color  so  long  that  it  has  become  a 
trade-mark.  If  you  are  familiar  at  all  with  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  laws  of  trade-marks,  you  know,  sirs,  that  when  a  man  or  a  firm 
has  used  for  a  given  length  of  time,  under  certain  conditions,  a  trade- 
mark, others  are  estopped  by  the  laws  from  trespassing  upon  it.  Why 
do  they  come  and  take  our  color  and  take  our  smell  and  take  our  taste 
and  put  it  in  their  goods  and  then  come  forward  and  sell  them  as  our 
goods,  and  yet  come  here  and  talk  about  healthful  competition  ?  In 
the  way  the  oleomargarine  business  is  carried  on  there  is  no  competi- 
tion at  all.  If  I  go  into  the  open  market  to  compete,  I  have  to  put  my 
goods  up  against  yours  and  let  the  consumer  know  what  he  is  buying. 
When  I  put  my  goods  in  with  yours  and  declare  they  are  yours,  you 
can  not  call  that  competition. 

Let  us  see.  I  will  go  outside  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Not  long 
ago  I  started  from  New  York  and  I  went  to  Fort  Worth,  Tex.  In  St. 
Louis  we  stopped  to  get  something  to  eat.  We  went  to  as  good  a  res- 
taurant as  we  could  find.  Mr.  Kracke  was  with  me.  He  is  an  expert 
and  can  tell  oleomargarine  every  time.  I  can  not  always  do  it.  He 
said  to  me,  "That  is  oleomargarine."  I  said,  " I  want  butter;  not 
oleomargarine."  The  waiter  said,  "That  is  butter."  I  said,  "It -is 
not  butter."  After  a  good  deal  of  confab  he  came  back  and  said  it  was 
butter.  I  insisted  that  it  was  not;  and  by  and  by  he  came  back  and 
said.  "That  is  the  only  kind  we  have  here;  that  is  oleo."  The  same 
thing  happened  to  us  on  Pennsylvania  avenue,  in  this  city,  with  Mr. 
Adams  present.  The  same  thing  happened  at  the  Worth  House,  the 
best  hotel,  I  understand,  in  the  city  of  Fort  Worth,  Tex.  These 
people  do  not  sell  it  for  oleomargarine.  Ninety-nine  times  out  of  a  hun- 
dred they  sell  it  for  butter.  I  do  not  mean  the  manufacturers.  1 
mean  when  it  gets  down  to  the  last  parties — from  the  last  man  to  the 
consumer.  I  know  when  you  turn  it  out  at  your  factories  you  turn  it 
out  as  a  rule,  though  not  always,  as  oleomargarine.  You  comply  with 
the  letter  of  the  law,  but  you  make  your  goods  in  the  best  possible 


OLEOMARGARINE.  127 

shape,  so  that  as  it  filters  down  through  the  avenues  of  commerce  it 
may  ultimately  be  sold  as  butter.  While  living  up  to  the  letter  of  the 
law  evade  its  spirit. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  How  would  the  proposed  10-cent  tax  do  away 
with  that  difficulty? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  I  am  not  a  prophet  or  the  son  of  a  prophet.  I  can 
not  tell  what  would  happen,  but  I  will  tell  you  what  I  wish  to  see 
happen.  I  speak  individually,  and  I  do  not  speak  for  anybody  but 
myself.  I  hope  it  would  tax  the  fraud  out  of  the  oleomargarine. 
That  is  all  I  want. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  If  oleomargarine  sold  at  a  price  high  enough  so 
that  the  manufacturers  could  pay  the  10  cents5  would  not  the  fraud 
exist  the  same  ? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  No,  sir.  I  will  stake  my  reputation  now  as  a 
prophet — I  would  not  a  moment  ago — on  the  proposition  that  when 
you  put  butter  at  30  cents  or  above  cows  enough  will  come  forward 
to  produce  butter  enough  to  hold  it  down.  That  never  will  happen  in 
this  country  under  ordinary  conditions. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  I  merely  asked  how  the  10  cents  tax  would  remove 
the  fraud. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  We  hope  it  will.  We  want  the  fraud  stopped,  and 
then  we  want  your  people,  if  your  goods  are  as  good  as  you  say  they 
are,  to  step  out  into  the  open  market  and  sell  them  for  what  they  are, 
so  that  they  can  deceive  no  one.  That  is  fair. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Would  it  be  a  fair  proposition  to  ask  the  manu- 
facturers of  creamery  butter  to  leave  the  color  out  of  their  butter  ? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  No,  sir;  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  In  the  first  place, 
that  is  the  natural  color  of  the  butter,  if  they  color  it  as  they  ought  to 
color  it.  Butter  is  yellow  when  the  cows  feed  upon  nature's  succulent 
food.  Color  in  butter  is  for  the  purpose  of  uniformity. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  It  brings  a  little  more  on  the  market. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Not  at  all.  I  ate  butter  in  New  York  City  the  other 
day  with  all  the  flavor  you  could  ask,  and  not  one  bit  of  coloring  and 
not  a  bit  of  salt  in  it.  I  ate  to-day  down  at  the  hotel  cheese  with  not 
one  bit  of  coloring  matter  in  it,  and  I  liked  it  just  as  well.  The  truth 
is  that  the  people,  if  your  commodity  is  good,  can  be  educated  to  eat 
it  without  its  coloring  matter,  and  you  will  not  deceive  them  as  to  the 
commodity. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  If  the  butter  is  so  good  when  it  is  white,  why  not 
leave  out  the  coloring  matter  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  That  is  not  the  proposition. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  I  am  willing  to  discuss  that  point  at  length  at  the 
proper  time  and  place,  but  you  are  aware  that  your  speaker  occupied 
an  hour  and  three-quarters,  and  my  time  is  limited  and  vanishing  with 
ordinary  rapidity. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  The  Judge  answered  very  courteously  any  ques- 
tion put  to  him. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  If  you  will  give  me  time,  I  will  gladly  answer  your 
questions. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  We  will  give  you  all  the  time  the  committee  will. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Talk  about  the  healthfulness  of  the  commodity. 
We  say  that  the  commodity  that  is  sold  upon  the  market  is  not  health- 
ful. The  Judge  in  speaking  said  that  it  was  universally  acknowledged 
to  be  healthful.  That  is  not  true.  I  think  the  Judge  made  the  state- 
ment from  a  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  facts. 


128  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  The  Supreme  Court  so  stated. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  The  Supreme  Court  did  not  say  that.  I  should  like 
to  hear  the  statement.  It  said  when  the  goods  are  properly  made;  but 
I  submit  the  proposition  that  the  Supreme  Court  is  not  to  pass  upon 
the  question  of  the  healthfulness  of  a  commodity.  They  are  to  con- 
strue the  laws  and  the  Constitution.  If  a  law  contravenes  the  Con- 
stitution, they  say  so;  if  it  is  within  the  powers,  they  say  so;  but 
whether  legislation  is  wise  or  unwise,  good  or  bad,  the  court  has 
said  time  and  again  is  no  concern  of  theirs.  I  do  not  think  that  the 
court  determined  or  tried  to  determine  that  question. 

Here,  gentlemen  [exhibiting],  is  one  of  many  samples  of  paraffin 
wax  taken  from  oleomargarine  sold  in  the  open  market  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  gathered  by  our  agents,  and  here  is  a  pamphlet  prepared 
by  Chemist  Joseph  F.  Geisler,  of  New  York  City  relative  to  the  mat- 
ter. I  will  not  read  it  to  you,  but  will  leave  it  with  you. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Where  did  he  purchase  that  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Mr.  Kracke,  where  was  that  oleomargarine  purchased  ? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  It  was  found  on  Third  avenue  in  New  York  City. 

Mr.  MILLER.  How  many  samples  did  he  examine  ? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Here  is  the  statement  of  the  chemist  showing  num- 
ber of  samples.  If  we  find  any  adulteration  in  the  course  of  our  work 
in  enforcing  the  law  we  make  a  note  of  it.  Here  are  eight  cases. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  When  was  this  analysis  made  ? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  In  1899;  some  of  them.  I  will  read  the  opening 
clause  of  this  pamphlet,  if  the  Senators  will  permit  me: 

c '  One  often  hears  of  adulterated  food,  but  rarely  are  such  sophisti- 
cations of  a  nature  that  they  may  be  deemed  injurious  to  health.  The 
recent  finding  of  paraffin  as  an  adulterant  in  a  number  of  samples  of 
commercial  oleomargarine  may  therefore  prove  of  interest. 

"Though  paraffin  has  been  mentioned  as  an  adulterant  of  chocolates 
and  candies,  the  use  of  such  an  indigestible  substance  as  an  adulterant 
of  oleomargarine  seemed  so  improbable  that  the  actual  separation  of 
the  paraffin  was  required  to  convince  some  skeptical  minds. 

' '  Its  use  in  oleomargarine  is  by  no  means  new,  for  I  first  observed  it 
in  a  commercial  sample  in  September,  1893,  and  reported  the  fact  to 
the  New  York  State  department  of  agriculture.  The  general  proper- 
ties of  the  fat  of  the  sample,  its  behavior  during  saponification,  and 

100°  F. 
the  abnormally  low  specific  gravity ,  0. 894  (at — z — i  QQQ  y  )?  indicated 

an  irregularity  and  the  probable  presence  of  paraffin.  Although  the 
sample  under  examination  amounted  to  only  a  few  grams,  sufficient  of 
the  unsaponifiable  matter  was  obtained  from  the  same  to  show  that  it 
was  paraffin.  It  was  impossible  at  the  time  to  get  more  of  this  par- 
ticular sample  or  duplicates  of  several  others  in  which  paraffin  was 
found  between  that  date  and  March,  1894,  when  I  was  enabled  to  pre- 
pare an  exhibit  of  the  paraffin  extracted  from  one  of  the  samples. 
About  this  time  experts  of  the  department  of  agriculture,  in  the 
course  of  their  inspections  in  New  York  and  Brooklyn,  found  quite  a 
number  of  samples  of  oleomargarine  which,  upon  analysis,  were  found 
to  contain  paraffin.  Some  of  these  were  analyzed  by  Drs.  Love,  Wal- 
ler, Stillwell,  and  myself,  and  the  amounts  of  paraffin  in  the  various 
samples  were  found  to  range  from  9.72  per  cent  to  11.25  per  cent." 

Now,  gentlemen,  those  are  facts.  This  pamphlet  was  issued  by  Dr. 
Geisler,  of  New  York. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  129 

Mr.  MILLER.  Why  would  any  manufacturer  use  that?  We  have 
been  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  butterine  from  fifteen  to  sixteen 
years.  I  can  not  understand  why  any  manufacturer  would  use  it. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  I  do  not  understand  why  men  commit  murder.  I 
understand  that  they  do.  I  do  not  want  to  stop  to  discuss  that  point, 
because  I  am  limited  for  time. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  I  suppose  you  have  examined  a  great  many  samples 
of  butter? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Our  chemists  have. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Did  you  ever  in  all  your  examinations  find  any- 
thing in  straight  butter,  stuff  sold  as  straight  butter  or  supposed  to  be 
straight  butter? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  We  have  never  found  dairy  butter  adulterated. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  You  never  have? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  No,  sir.  I  should  like  to  say  that  we  pay  attention 
to  every  communication,  anonymous  or  otherwise.  It  does  not  make 
any  difference  who  the  man  is  who  sends  in  the  communication,  we  take 
cognizance  of  it  and  hunt  it  down  to  the  roots. 

I  now  turn  to  the  report  made  by  Dr.  R.  D.  Clark  upon  the  health- 
fulness  of  oleomargarine.  He  is  a  chemist  and  medical  man  of  twenty 
years'  standing,  and  I  want  to  say  here  and  now  that  our  opinion  in 
the  State  of  New  York,  after  having  given  this  subject  a  great  deal  of 
study  and  thought  and  after  having  obtained  the  very  best  advice  we 
could  get,  is  that  a  chemist  is  not,  by  virtue  of  his  chemical  knowledge, 
a  competent  man  to  tell  about  the  healthfulness  of  food  products.  A 
chemist's  province  is  to  take  a  commodity,  and  take  it  apart,  and  tell  what 
is  in  it.  It  is  no  part  of  his  work  to  tell  what  effect  that  article  pro- 
duces upon  the  human  system.  That  is  a  physiological  question.  Dr. 
Clark,  a  physician,  says,  relative  to  the  healthfulness  of  oleomargarine: 

"  We  now  come  to  the  all-important  aspect  of  the  subject,  Is  arti- 
ficial butter  a  wholesome  article  of  food?  We  answer  it  in  the 
negative,  on  the  following  grounds: 

"First.  On  account  of  its  indigestibility. 

"  Second.  On  account  of  its  insolubility  when  made  from  animal 
fats. 

u  Third.  On  account  of  its  liability  to  carry  germs  of  disease  into 
the  human  system. 

u  Fourth.  On  account  of  the  probability  of  its  containing,  when 
made  under  certain  patents,  unhealthy  ingredients." 

I  should  like  to  read  the  patents — I  have  here  40  or  50 — showing 
not  necessarily  what  goes  into  oleomargarine,  but  what  they  say  goes 
into  it.  What  they  do  we  do  not  know.  Our  chemist  has  been  to 
Chicago  under  the  expressed  promise  that  he  might  go  into  the  works, 
but  he  never  got  through. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Are  these  patents  for  the  manufacture  of  oleomarga- 
rine or  butter  ? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Oleomargarine,  as  filed  here  in  Washington. 

Mr.  MILLER.  They  are  substitutes  for  butter  in  a  great  many  cases. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  They  are  not  substitutes  for  butter,  but  patents  for 
oleomargarine.  I  am  quite  familiar  with  the  subject,  and  I  tell  you 
they  are  for  oleomargarine.  Dr.  Clark  says: 

"Before  entering  upon  the  argument  we  wish  to  state  that  we  have 
investigated  the  claim  made  by  the  k  oleo '  makers  that  the  '  weight  of 
the  testimony  of  the  medical  profession  was  in  favor  of  its  being 

S.  Rep.  2043 9 


130  OLEOMARGARINE. 

healthy.'  This,  no  doubt,  was  true  a  few  years  ago;  but  we  have  made 
it  a  point  of  inquiry  for  nearly  two  years  past  and  find  that  this  opinion 
of  the  physicians  was  based  not,  as  a  general  thing,  upon  investigation, 
but  upon  the  sanction  given  to  the  stuff  by  such  eminent  chemists  as 
Profs.  C.  F.  Chandler,  R.  Ogden  Doremus,  etc.  The  opinion  was  also 
based  upon  Mege's  product,  which  must  be  admitted  to  be  less  dele- 
terious to  health  than  most,  if  not  all,  the  others.  Then,  too,  these 
spurious  articles  were  sold  so  surreptitiously,  until  those  whose  per- 
sonal interests  were  incidentally  affected  stirred  up  the  legislature  to 
investigate,  that  but  little  or  no  attention  was  given  to  the  subject,  and 
consequently  but  little  known  about  it;  but  now,  since  attention  has 
been  so  forcibly  called  to  it  by  the  agitation  of  the  dairy  commissioner 
in  his  endeavor  to  execute  the  laws  prohibiting  its  manufacture  and 
sale,  no  difficulty  will  attend  the  finding  of  plenty  of  eminent  physicians 
who  will  declare  it  may  be  a  very  unhealthy  article  of  food.  We  wish 
also  to  state  here  that  the  physiology,  like  the  chemistry,  of  fats  until 
recently  has  been  studied  as  a  whole,  and  consequently  but  little  was 
known  of  their  individual  properties. 

"We  read  in  Wankryn's  Milk  Analysis,  published  in  1874,  that 
'with  regard  to  the  question  of  admixture  of  foreign  fats  with  milk 
fat  we  are  unable,  in  the  present  condition  of  our  knowledge,  to  deal 
with  that  part  of  the  problem.'  We  have  no  less  than  four  reliable 
chemical  methods  for  distinguishing  butter  fat  from  other  fats. 
Experimental  physiologists  are  now  entering  this  unexplored  field, 
and  important  discoveries  may  be  confidently  expected." 

Again  he  says:  "The  large  proportion  of  butyrin  in  butter  and  its 
nonoccurrence  in  an}^  of  the  other  animal  fats,  together  with  the  vola- 
tility of  its  acids,  has  long  impressed  us  with  the  belief  that  it  had 
some  important  office  to  perform  in  the  digestive  process.  Under  this 
belief  we  began  a  series  of  experiments  upon  the  artificial  digestion  of 
different  fats.  Our  digestive  fluid  was  composed  of  5  grains  of  Fair- 
child  Brothers'  and  Foster's  'Extractum  pancreatis'  and  5  grains  of 
bicarbonate  of  soda  dissolved  in  10  c.  c.  of  distilled  water.  After  the 
solution  was  complete  we  added  half  a  dram  of  melted  fat. 

"  The  whole  was  well  agitated  in  a  test  tube  and  placed  in  an  oven 
at  a  temperature  of  from  100  to  101°  F.  The  fats  experimented  on 
were  cod-liver  oil,  butter,  oleomargarine  butter,  the  commercial  oleo- 
margarine oil,  lard  oil,  benne  oil,  cotton-seed  oil,  lard,  and  mutton  and 
beef  suet.  The  cod-liver  oil  was  bought  from  a  reliable  drug  store. 

"Both  fresh  and  stale  butter  was  used  and  was  such  as  we  had  made, 
ourselves,  seeing  the  milk  from  which  it  was  made  drawn  from  the 
cow,  or  such  as  we  had  analyzed  ourselves  and  found  to  be  pure  cows' 
butter.  Fresh  and  stale  '  oleo '  was  used,  and  was  also  either  made  by 
ourselves  under  the  '  Nathan '  patent,  which  '  oleo '  contained  some  free 
acid,  or  was  that  which  we  had  analyzed.  The  oils  were  all  obtained 
from  'oleo'  makers  or  dealers  in  New  York  City.  Both  the  pure 
washed  dry  fats  of  the  butters  and  '  oleos '  and  the  natural  products 
were  compared,  as  will  be  described  directly.  The  contents  of  the 
test  tubes  were  examined  under  a  microscope  at  intervals  of  one,  two, 
three,  four,  six,  twelve,  sixteen,  and  twenty  hours. 

"The  cod-liver  oil  nearly  always  showed  the  finest  emulsion. 

"Next,  and  the  difference  was  "of  ten  just  perceptible,  came  genuine 
butter.  'Oleo'  and  lard  oil  came  next,  there  being  frequently  no 


OLEOMARGARINE.  131 

appreciable  difference  between  them,  but  between  the  butter  and  the 
'oleo'  there  was  a  marked  difference  at  the  end  of  each  period. 

"Fig.  4,  Plate  I,  and  fig.  1,  Plate  II,  shows  the  difference  between 
6  oleo '  and  genuine  butter  after  being  acted  upon  by  the  digestive  fluid 
for  one  hour.  It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  no  emulsion  at  all  of  the 
'  oleo '  while  the  butter  is  well  advanced. 

"Fig.  5,  Plate  I,  and  fig,  2,  Plate  II,  shows  the  same  at  the  end  of 
four  hours.  It  is  seen  that  the  '  oleo '  is  not  nearly  as  much  emulsified 
as  the  butter  was  at  the  end  of  one  hour. 

"Fig.  6,  Plate  I,  and  fig.  3,  Plate  II,  presents  the  same  at  the  end 
of  twelve  hours,  which  shows  that  the  '  oleo '  is  but  a  trifle,  if  at  all, 
further  emulsionized  than  the  butter  was  at  the  end  of  the  four  hours." 

And  again: 

"It  is  important  to  know  that  the  approval  given  to  Mege's  oleo- 
margarine as  an  article  of  food  by  the  council  of  health  of  Paris,  in 
1872,  on  the  strength  of  the  favorable  report  made  by  M.  Felix  Baudet 
(an  abstract  of  which  is  given  on  page  30  of  this  report)  was  morally, 
at  least,  withdrawn  in  consequence  of  a  report  of  an  investigation  made 
by  a  commission  of  the  academy  of  medicine  for  the  prefect  of  the 
Seine,  disappro  ving  of  the  article  for  use  except  to  a  limited  extent  in 
cooking,  on  the  ground  of  its  comparatve  indigestibily.  It  was 
never  allowed  to  be  sold  in  the  public  markets  of  Paris  except  under 
its  own  name.  Its  sale  is  now  prohibited  in  the  public  markets. 

"  The  insolubility  of  those  artificial  butters  made  from  animal  fats 
is  another  potent  quality  for  rendering  them  indigestible.  In  man  the 
digestive  process  is  carried  on  with  greater  rapidity  than  in  any  of  the 
lower  animals;  and  the  gastric  juice  acts  upon  food  from  the  outside 
toward  the  center;  that  is,  it  does  not  soak  the  material  and  exert  its 
solvent  action  upon  the  whole  of  it  at  the  same  time.  Consequently 
the  greater  amount  of  surface  of  food  directly  exposed  the  more  rapid 
its  digestion.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  it  is  so  necessary  for  man  to 
carry  out  the  process  of  mastication  thoroughly.  It  is  for  this  reason 
also  that  some  people  experience  distress  after  eating  eggs  boiled  just 
hard,  but  none  after  eating  them  soft  boiled,  or  after  being  boiled  for 
some  time,  when  they  become  '  mealy.'  The  difference  in  the  digestion 
of  an  egg  is  again  felt  when  eaten  raw  without  beating  and  when  it  is 
beaten.  The  beating  mixes  the  albumen  with  the  air,  rendering  it 
porous. 

"  The  artificial  butters  made  from  animal  fats,  although  the  olein  and 
palmitin  are  separated  as  much  as  possible  by  pressure,  will  not  liquefy 
at  the  stomach  temperature,  as  is  demonstrated  by  the  following  experi- 
ments: We  placed  in  an  oven  kept  at  a  temperature  of  from  100  to  104° 
F.  four  beakers  containing,  respectively,  pure  butter,  oleomargarine 
butter,  oleomargarine  oil  (commercial),  and  lard  oil,  about  20  drams  of 
each,  and  which  were  all  of  the  temperature  of  about  60°  F.  when  taken. 
At  the  expiration  of  thirty-five  minutes,  and  the  temperature  at  100° 
F.,  the  butter  presented  a  clear  limpid  appearance,  but  the  others 
remained  solid,  being  but  very  little  affected,  and  at  the  end  of  five 
hours,  the  temperature  being  from  101  to  104°  F. ,  they  were  in  a  semi- 
solid  condition,  the  oleomargarine  oil  being  most  softened,  the  oleo 
butter  next,  and  the  lard  the  least  softened. 

>fc  These  insoluble  fats,  then,  must  interfere  with  digestion  in  two 
ways:  First,  by  not  being  acted  upon  themselves  by  the  gastric  juice, 


132  OLEOMARGARINE. 

and  second,  by  being  thoroughly  mixed  with  the  other  foods  in  the 
mouth  they  form  an  impervious  covering  to  them,  thereby  preventing 
the  gastric  juice  from  coming  into  direct  contact  with  them. 

"Randolph  says  that  'a  further  reason  that  the  fats,  especially 
when  cooked  with  other  foods,  are  frequently  found  to  be  unwhole- 
some is  that  in  the  process  of  cooking  they  so  surround  and  saturate 
the  tissues  of  the  substance  with  which  they  are  combined  that  it  is 
rendered  nearly  inaccessible  to  the  action  of  the  saliva  and  gastric 
juice,  and  at  times  digestion  is  in  so  far  delayed  that  the  fried  sub- 
stance does  not  become  entirely  freed  from  this  more  or  less  impervi- 
ous coating  of  fat  until  subjected  to  the  action  of  the  pancreatic  juice.' 

' '  This  retards  digestion  and  prevents  that  increased  flow  of  gastric 
juice  which  follows  the  absorption  in  the  stomach  of  the  first  portion 
of  food  digested,  as  is  shown  to  be  the  case  by  Heidenhan's  experiment, 
and  also  deprives  the  proteids  of  that  aid  in  their  digestion  which  fats 
are  declared  to  render." 

That  is  the  same  proposition  laid  down  but  a  moment  since. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  is  anything  you  desire  to  insert,  if 
you  will  mark  it  and  hand  it  to  the  reporter,  it  will  be  inserted. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  I  am  sorry  to  have  to  rush  over  this  so  fast,  because 
it  embodies  facts  that  ought  to  be  presented  to  the  committee.  It  is 
not  fancy.  It  is  not  quoted  upon  hearsay. 

Here  [exhibiting]  is  a  book  that  is  just  out.  I  telegraphed  last  Sat- 
urday to  New  York  for  it,  and  they  had  to  telegraph  to  Chicago  for 
it,  and  it  came  down,  perhaps,  with  our  Chicago  friends.  It  is  just 
out  on  the  market.  The  author  is  J.  Milner  Fothergill,  M.  D.,  mem- 
ber of  the  Royal  College  of  Physicians  of  London;  senior  assistant 
physician  to  the  city  of  London  Hospital  for  Diseases  of  the  Chest 
(Victoria  Park);  late  assistant  physician  to  the  West  London  Hospital; 
associate  fellow  of  the  College  of  Physicians  of  Philadelphia.  I  want 
to  read  what  he  says.  He  is  a  physiologist,  and  not  a  chemist. 

He  says: 

"And  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  third  division  of  the  subject, 
the  digestion  of  fats. 

"  We  do  not  know  as  yet  any  change  exercised  upon  fat  by  heat,  by  the 
act  of  cooking,  except  that  of  rendering  it  fluid.  Certainly  cooking  ren- 
ders fat  more  toothsome,  and  in  the  case  of  fat  exposed  directly  to  great 
heat,  as  in  the  case  of  the  fat  of  a  beefsteak  or  a  mutton  chop,  the  action 
of  the  heat  upon  the  albuminous  capsule  of  the  adipose  tissue  is  to  make 
it  decidedly  tasty;  but  heat  cloes  liquefy  fat,  and  separates  (we  believe) 
olein  from  stearin  and  margarin.  The  liquid  portion  of  fried  bacon  is 
digested  by  many  who  can  not  digest  the  solid  portion  of  bacon  fat. 
This  is  a  well-known  fact.  The  fluid  is  the  olein.  Fats  vary  in  their 
digestibility.  The  late  Dr.  John  Hughes  Bennett  said:  4The  main 
causes  of  tuberculosis  were  the  dearness  of  butter  and  the  abundance 
of  pastry  cooks,  the  poor  not  getting  sufficient  fat  and  the  upper  classes 
disordering  their  digestion  by  pun  taste.'  Now,  butter  consists  of 
the  fat  globules  of  milk  removed  from  their  envelopes  of  casein  by 
the  act  of  churning,  thus  getting  rid  of  the  albuminous  envelope,  which 
is  one  of  the  difficulties  in  the  digestion  of  animal  fat." 

I  believe  you  can  not  find  any  evidence  in  nature  anywhere  to  show 
that  nature  ever  intended  any^  globule  of  fat  to  go  into  the  human 
stomach  raw  except  that  one  globule  of  butter  fat  which  is  found  in 


OLEOMARGARINE.  133 

the  secretion  of  the  mammary  glands.  Nature  provides  fat  for  the 
offspring  of  mammals  by  producing  a  fat  in  fluid  found  in  the  mam- 
mary gland,  and  that  will  always  melt  at  less  than  the  temperature  of 
the  stomach,  is  easily  digested,  and  aids  in  the  digestion  of  other  foods. 
When  you  put  these  other  fats,  containing  stearin,  which  is  the  most 
objectionable,  into  the  stomach,  they  can  not  be  readily  digested. 

There  are  cases  on  record  where  jackknives  have  gone  into  the 
stomach  and  the  bone  handle  digested,  but  that  is  extraordinary,  and  we 
are  here  in  the  interest  of  the  ordinary.  Animal  fats  other  than  those 
found  in  the  secretion  of  the  mammary  gland  will  not  as  a  rule  melt  at 
the  temperature  of  the  stomach,  and  instead  of  aiding  digestion  they 
hinder  it.  It  may  be  said  by  our  opponents  that  the  difference  is  one  of 
degree  only.  For  the  sake  of  the  argument  let  us  admit  it,  and  then  say 
it  can  be  illustrated  by  the  difference  in  energy  exerted  by  a  man 
rowing  a  boat  down  a  stream  and  up  a  stream,  and  then  the  difference 
is  in  the  favor  of  butter,  and  the  extent  of  the  difference  may  vary  in 
different  samples  of  oleomargarine  as  the  swiftness  of  streams  vary. 

We  come  here  and  say  that  32  States  of  the  Union,  containing  75 
per  cent  or  at  least  60,000,000  out  of  the  77,000,000  of  population, 
have  declared  in  their  State  laws  that  the  people  should  not  be  deceived 
into  buying  this  commodity,  as  it  is  harder  to  digest  than  the  other. 
Suppose  that  everything  about  its  manufacture  everywhere  is  as  clean 
as  it  ought  to  be — and  I  will  admit  that  in  the  great  manufactories  of 
Chicago  that  is  probably  true,  but  unfortunately  they  are  not  the  only 
manufactories.  But  let  us  suppose  that  everywhere  it  is  so.  Then  we 
say  to  you  that  32  States  have  said  that  the  people  shall  not  be  deceived, 
and  that  the  only  thing  that  arises  now  to  prevent  the  full  enforce- 
ment of  those  laws,  which  they  believe  to  have  been  enacted  within  the 
police  power  properly,  is  the  fact  that  the  power  to  regulate  commerce 
between  the  States  is  given  to  the  National  Government,  and  then  ask 
such  action  at  your  hands  as  will  complete  State  power  to  the  end  that 
our  people  shall  not  be  imposed  upon  into  buying  or  consuming  a  com- 
modity which  really  is  detrimental  as  compared  with  the  other 
commodity.  Is  not  this  request  within  bounds  and  warranted  by  the 
facts  ? 

On  what  ground  do  our  friends  assert  that  oleo  is  healthful  ?  My 
understanding  is  that  they  have  none  whatever.  To  illustrate:  They 
quote  a  chemist  as  saying,  "There  is  nothing  in  oleomargarine  that  is 
not  in  butter,  and  nothing  in  butter  that  is  not  in  oleomargarine." 
Now,  to  my  mind,  this  is  a  fair  sample  of  their  reasons;  it  has  just 
enough  truth  in  it  to  answer  the  purpose.  Now,  what  are  the  facts, 
or  some  of  them?  Both  oleomargarine  and  butter  contain  stearin,  a 
fat  that  melts  only  at  quite  too  high  a  temperature  for  the  human 
stomach,  and,  therefore,  very  hard  to  digest,  and  oleomargarine  con- 
tains from  four  to  five  times  as  much  of  it  as  butter.  Take  one  more 
illustration:  "ButjTin"  is  in  both  substances,  melts  at  a  low  tem- 
perature, digests  easily,  and  aids  digestion  of  other  foods.  Butyrin 
is  found  in  butter  to  the  extent  of  about  8  per  cent,  while  there  is  very 
little — only  a  trace — in  oleomargarine.  This  being  true,  it  is  not,  in 
my  judgment,  a  full,  fair  statement  of  the  fact  to  say  "there  is  noth- 
ing in  butter  that  is  not  in  oleo,  and  nothing  in  oleo  that  is  not  in 
butter,"  but  is  an  illustration  of  some  of  the  methods  adopted  in  the 
oleo  traffic. 


134  OLEOMAEGAEINE. 

These  people  talk  about  an  ideal  oleomargarine.  They  do  not  talk 
about  the  kind  referred  to  by  Dr.  Bartlett,  of  Brooklyn,  in  a  letter  to 
Dr.  R.  D.  Clark,  of  Albany,  N.  Y.,  which  I  wish  to  read: 

"  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y.,  January  18,  1886. 

"  DEAR  DOCTOR:  In  reply  to  yours  of  the  12th  instant,  I  would  say 
that  all  I  can  say  of  the  oil  1  showed  in  New  York  was  that  it  was 
manufactured  on  Newtown  Creek  by  Mr.  Henry  Beran.  Mr.  Beran 
has  the  contract  for  the  dead  animals  and  offal  of  the  city  of  Brooklyn. 
The  oil  in  question  was  made  from  the  comb  fat  (so  called)  of  horses — 
that  is,  from  the  top  part  of  the  necks  of  the  horses  which  were  obtained 
from  this  city  and  tried  out  by  the  contractor.  The  horses  were  such 
as  die  in  every  city  from  both  accident  and  disease.  There  were  a 
large  number  of  horses  killed  in  Brooklyn  last  year  that  were  suffering 
with  glanders.  Whether  any  of  these  horses  helped  to  make  up  this 
oil  I  do  not  know;  nor  does  Mr.  Beran.  The  specimen  I  had  in  New 
York  was  a  very  fine  oil,  and  it  shows  that  an  oil  can  be  made  from 
dead  horses  which  in  taste  and  naked-eye  appearance  is  as  palatable  as 
the  best  ;oleo'  oil. 

' '  Mr.  Beran  has  told  me  that  he  is  satisfied  that  some  of  his  oil  has 
been  used  for  the  manufacture  of  '  oleo '  butter.  He  has  always  been 
very  careful  about  telling  me  to  whom  he  sells  it  and  he  evidently 
thinks  it  is  used  for  that  purpose;  in  fact,  he  says  he  knows  it  has  been. 
I  give  this  as  his  own  statement,  and  for  what  it  is  worth.  I  could  not 
prove  it.  From  the  odor,  taste,  etc. ,  of  this  oil  I  am  of  the  opinion 
that  it  can  be  used  to  make  c  oleomargarine,'  and  that  its  use  for  that 
purpose  ought  to  be  strongly  condemned.  I  also  hold  that  the  use  of 
lard  tried  out  at  a  temperature  below  130°  Fahrenheit  should  be  pro- 
hibited. Hoping  this  will  answer  your  questions,  I  am, 
i c  Very  sincerely  yours, 

"E.  H.  BARTLEY,  M.  D." 

He  says  he  feels  satisfied  that  that  oil  was  made  into  oleomargarine; 
that  there  was  entirely  too  much  for  any  other  purpose.  Now,  the  smile 
is  so  audible  that  I  must  pay  attention  to  it.  When  we  commenced  to 
investigate  those  q uestions  these  frauds  were  practiced.  They  are  not 
practiced  now.  Our  law  has  hedged  you  about,  and  more  capital  has 
gone  into  the  business.  You  have  put  the  business  on  a  higher  scale 
than  it  ever  was  before,  and  you  are  making  as  good  a  commodity  as 
you  can  out  of  the  stuff  you  have  to  make  it  out  of.  We  only  ask 
you  in  fairness  to  step  one  notch  higher  and  do  not  make  it  resemble 
butter. 

Do  you  know  that  in  the  great  State  of  New  York  there  are  1,600,000 
cows?  Do  you  know  we  have  250,000  persons  engaged  in  farm  work? 
And  yet  you  seek  to  come  into  our  market  and  drive  us  out  and  ruin 
that  industry.  Is  there  anything  fair  about  that?  We  ask  you  to 
stand  up  like  men  and  sell  your  commodity  for  what  it  is.  Then  if 
you  can  compete  with  us  we  will  stand  it  like  men.  Not  many  years 
ago  we  were  in  the  meat  market.  We  raised  cattle  in  New  York  and 
sold  them  for  meat.  We  sold  cereals.  The  Genesee  and  Rochester 
valleys  were  great  wheat  fields.  Then  the  wheat  fields  of  the  Missis- 
sippi Valley  were  opened  up,  cultivated  by  machinery.  Then  South 
America  opened  up  her  wheat  fields  and  produced  grain  at  37  cents  a 
bushel  on  shipboard,  Australia  opened  up  her  wheat  fields,  and  now 
Russia  is  opening  up  Siberia  to  the  production  of  the  cereals.  We 


OLEOMARGARINE.  135 

are  driven  entirely  out  of  the  cereals  market.  We  have  been  driven 
out  of  the  meat  market,  and  there  has  not  been  one  word  of  com- 
plaint. It  was  done  among  men  in  open  competition,  but  we  do 
complain  when  you  take  all  that  is  left  and  seek  to  do  it  by  fraud.  I 
can  not  conceive  how  any  man  who  has  had  any  experience  anywhere 
that  gives  him  a  knowledge  of  ethics  can  sustain  the  man  who  has 
placed  upon  the  market  a  commodity  looking,  smelling,  and  tasting 
like  another,  as  that  other,  and  then  say  when  we  ask  him  to  stop  it 
that  we  are  trying  to  down  a  healthy  competition.  It  is  not  com- 
petition. It  is  downright  robbery. 

We  have  with  us  the  president  of  the  State  Dairymen's  Association, 
representing  250,000  persons.  They  want  this  measure.  We  have 
the  master  of  the  New  York  State  Grange,  representing  60,000 
grangers.  They  want  this  bill.  He  is  authorized  by  the  master 
of  the  National  Grange  to  say  that  the  National  Grange  wants  it.  It 
has  passed  a  resolution  favorable  to  it.  The  National  Farmers'  Con- 
gress at  Fort  Worth  passed  a  resolution  in  favor  of  it.  So  did  the 
congress  at  St.  Paul.  It  passed  a  resolution  favoring  the  first  part  of 
the  bill.  At  that  time  the  10-cent  tax  was  not  in.  The  national  con- 
gress at  Boston  favored  the  first  section,  and  last  summer,  at  Colorado 
Springs,  they  passed  a  resolution  favoring  this  bill.  The  National 
Association  of  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioners  in  Detroit  passed  a 
resolution  favoring  it,  at  Harrisburg,  at  Chicago,  and  this  year  at  Mil- 
waukee. The  National  Dairy  Union  is  for  it.  All  these  people  are 
favorable  to  it.  I  only  quote  them  to  offset  the  proposition  relative 
to  the  one  organization  which  has  been  quoted  as  against  the  measure. 

Now,  leaving  out  the  question  of  how  many  people  are  for  it  or  how 
many  people  are  against  it,  in  my  judgment  if  it  is  an  unjust  measure 
it  should  not  pass;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  only  thing  which  it  seeks 
to  do  is  to  suppress  a  fraud  that  exists,  and  I  tell  you  it  does  exist, 
and  every  dairy  and  food  commissioner  here  can  bear  testimony  to  it. 
It  is  not  given  to  you  as  hearsay.  For  sixteen  years  I  have  been  watch- 
ing this  work,  seeing  it  go  on.  There  is  a  gentlemen  here  represent- 
ing a  large  firm  in  Chicago.  They  came  down  into  our  State  two  or 
three  years  ago  and  attempted  to  put  in  oleomargarine.  I  myself 
went  into  the  city  of  Cohoes  with  two  other  men.  We  watched  for 
two  weeks.  We  finally  found  that  it  came  in  over  the  railroad  in  bar- 
rels of  10-pound  tubs,  with  canvas  over  the  heads  of  the  barrels.  We 
had  it  watched  day  and  night.  I  went  myself  with  men  from  house  to 
house  inhabited  by  French  families  who  could  not  speak  a  word  of 
English.  I  asked  an  old  woman  if  she  bought  it  for  butter.  She  could 
not  speak  any  English.  I  got  a  little  girl  there  to  ask  the  old  lady 
what  she  bought  it  for,  and  she  said,  "For  butter."  "For  pure  but- 
ter ? "  I  asked.  She  said,  c <  Yes. "  I  said, ' '  What  did  you  pay  ? "  She 
told  me  22  cents,  and  that  was  the  price  of  butter.  It  was  sold  to  those 
people  for  butter.  It  has  been  our  experience  for  sixteen  years  in  the 
State  of  New  York  that  that  is  what  is  done.  This  business  thrives 
down  at  the  last  end,  when  it  reaches  the  consumer,  upon  fraud.  And 
when  I  say  that  I  do  not  accuse  any  manufacturer  when  he  puts  out 
oleomargarine  of  committing  a  fraud;  I  simply  say  that  if  he  is  guilty 
at  all  he  is  particeps  criminis. 

Now,  all  we  want  of  you  is  to  stop  that.  Is  there  anything  unfair 
about  it?  We  do  not  ask  an  unjust  thing.  We  will  stand  in  fair 
competition  with  anybody  in  this  country  or  abroad  if  we  can  have 


136  OLEOMARGARINE. 

competition,  but  we  do  not  want  to  be  robbed,  and  we  think  it  is  just 
that  this  measure  may  be  passed,  giving  us  the  right  to  enforce  our 
State  laws,  and  then  put  on  the  tax  and,  if  possible,  tax  out  the  fraud 
that  is  in  it.  I  will  not  try  to  discuss  the  decision  relative  to  State 
banks.  My  friend  did  not  discuss  that  phase  of  the  question.  I  am 
sorry  to  have  had  to  cut  this  matter  so  close. 

In  closing  I  wish  to  submit  what  Dr.  Clark  sa}^s: 

"In  order  to  give  an  appreciable  understanding  of  the  indigestibility 
of  artificial  butter  we  must  briefly  describe  the  digestive  processes. 
The  great  variety  of  foods  taken  by  man  is  derived  from  the  mineral 
and  organic  kingdoms.  From  the  mineral  comes  water,  salts,  etc., 
with  which  we  have  no  concern  at  present.  The  organic  foods  are  the 
products  of  living  organized  bodies,  and  divided  into  two  great  classes, 
viz:  First,  protein  principles,  also  called  albuminoid  and  nitrogenized 
principles.  These  are  chemically  composed  of  oxygen,  hydrogen, 
carbon,  and  nitrogen.  The  latter  element  chemically  distinguishes 
them  from  the  second  class,  the  hydrocarbons,  which  are  composed  of 
oxygen,  hydrogen,  and  carbon.  In  sugar,  starch,  and  some  other 
substances  belonging  to  this  class,  the  oxygen  and  hydrogen  exist  in 
proper  proportions  to  form  water,  which  has  given  rise  to  a  subdivision 
of  the  hydrocarbons  into  hydrocarbons  and  carbohydrates.  Fats 
and  oils  belong  to  the  hydrocarbons. 

"  When  food  is  taken  into  the  mouth  its  presence  stimulates,  through 
the  nervous  arrangement,  the  salivary  glands  to  produce  a  copious  flow 
of  saliva,  which,  during  mastication,  is  (or  ought  to  be)  thoroughly 
mixed  with  the  food.  Aside  from  a  slight  conversion  of  starch  into 
sugar  the  act  of  mastication  is  purely  mechanical — the  food  is  broken 
up,  lubricated,  and  gathered  into  proper  form  to  be  swallowed.  The 
temperature  in  the  mouth  i$  100°  F.,  and,  of  course,  any  free  fat  whose 
melting  point  is  at  or  below  this  temperature  will  liquefy.  The  chemi- 
cal reaction  of  saliva  is  alkaline. 

'•  When  the  food  reaches  the  stomach  its  presence,  as  in  the  mouth, 
acts  as  a  stimulus  and  causes  an  increased  secretion,  which  has  already 
begun  when  the  food  was  taken  into  the  mouth,  of  the  acid  fluid  called 
gastric  juice. 

"  The  muscular  construction  of  the  stomach  keeps  the  food  in  constant 
motion  so  that  it  is  thoroughly  mixed  with  the  gastric  juice.  When 
the  bolus  of  food  mixed  with  saliva  comes  in  contact  with  the  acid  gas- 
tric juice  the  conversion  of  starch  into  sugar  ceases,  the  proteids  are 
broken  up  and  dissolved,  the  proteid  cell  walls  of  the  adipose  tissue  are 
dissolved,  which  sets  the  fat-drops  free,  and  the  free  fats  which  liquefy 
at  or  below  100  degrees,  or  perhaps  101°  F.,  which  is  the  highest  tem- 
perature in  the  stomach,  are  melted  and  to  some  extent  emulsified  and 
split  up  into  fatty  acid  and  glyceryl.  The  acidity  of  the  gastric  juice 
is  essential  to  its  activity. 

"As  the  food  is  dissolved  or  digested  (it  is  now  called  chyme),  it  is 
mostly  carried  into  the  intestines  by  the  muscular  action  of  the  stomach 
where  it  is  met  by  three  other  digestive  fluids — the  bile,  pancreatic 
juice,  and  intestinal  juice,  which  are  all  alkaline  in  reaction.  When 
the  chyme  leaves  the  stomach  it  is,  under  normal  conditions,  acid; 
but  as  it  is  mixed  with  these  alkaline  fluids  its  acidity  is  neutralized 
and  its  reaction  becomes  alkaline. 

"In  the  intestine  the  conversion  of  starch  into  sugar  takes  place 
with  great  rapidity  and  the  proteids  or  peptones,  as  they  are  called, 


OLEOMARGARINE.  137 

after  being  acted  upon  by  the  pepsine  of  the  gastric  juice,  are  still 
further  broken  up.  The  pancreatic  juice,  so  far  as  is  known,  is  the 
chief  agent  in  bringing  about  these  changes.  The  bile  does  nothing 
more  than  to  aid  in  neutralizing  the  acidity  and  thus  prepare  them  for 
the  action  of  the  pancreatic  juice.  But  with  fat  it  becomes  an  impor- 
tant factor.  Its  salts  unite  with  any  free  fatty  acid  and  form  soaps. 
It  also  dissolves  soaps  which,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  materially  aid 
the  pancreatic  fluid  in  its  action  upon  fats.  Bile  also  has  some  emul- 
sifying power  on  fats.  A  soap  is  a  fat  acid  united  with  a  base,  as 
soda,  potash,  etc. 

"The  pancreatic  juice  has  a  powerful  emulsifying  effect  upon  fats; 
that  is,  divides  them  into  very  minute  particles.  It  also  has  the  power, 
to  some  extent,  of  breaking  them  up  into  their  fatty  acid  and  glycerin; 
and  if  an  alkali  is  present  the  fatty  acid  unites  with  it  to  form  soap. 

"As  we  have  alread}7  stated,  bile  has  a  slight  emulsionizing  and  sol- 
vent effect  upon  fat,  but  the  fact  which  is  known  to  be  the  most  impor- 
tant in  its  relation  to  the  digestion  of  fat  is  that  it  unites  with  the  free 
fatty  acids  which  are  present  in  the  chyme  and  forms  soaps.  It  also 
dissolves  soaps  that  may  have  been  formed  before  reaching  it;  and  the 
presence  of  soluble  soaps  are  known  to  aid  the  emulsion  of  fats. 

' '  Foster  says  in  reference  to  this :  '  Thus  a  rancid  fat — i.  e. ,  a  fat 
containing  a  certain  amount  of  free  fatty  acid  forms  an  emulsion  with 
an  alkaline  fluid  more  readily  than  does  a  neutral  fat.  A  drop  of  ran- 
cid oil  let  fall  on  the  surface  of  an  alkaline  fluid,  such  as  a  solution  of 
sodium  carbonate  of  suitable  strength,  rapidly  forms  a  broad  ring  of 
emulsion  and  that  even  without  the  least  agitation.  As  saponification 
takes  place  at  the  junction  of  the  oil  and  alkaline  fluid  currents  are  set 
up  by  which  globules  of  oil  are  detached  from  the  main  drop  and 
driven  out  in  a  centrifugal  direction.  The  intensity  of  the  currents 
and  the  consequent  amount  of  emulsion  depend  on  the  concentration 
of  the  alkaline  medium  and  on  the  solubility  of  the  soaps  which  are 
formed;  hence  some  fats,  such  as  cod-liver  oil,  are  much  more  easily 
emulsionized  in  this  way  than  others.  Now,  the  bile  and  pancreatic 
juice  supply  just  such  conditions  as  the  above  for  emulsionizing  fats; 
they  both  together  afford  an  alkaline  medium.  The  pancreatic  juice 
^ives  rise  to  an  adequate  amount  of  free  fatty  acid,  and  the  bile  in 
addition  brings  into  soluti'on  the  soaps  as  they  are  formed.  So  that 
we  may  speak  of  the  emulsion  of  fats  in  the  small  intestine  as  being 
carried  on  by  the  bile  and  pancreatic  juice  acting  in  conjunction,  and, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  bile  and  pancreatic  juice  do  largely  emulsify 
the  contents  of  the  small  intestine,  so  that  the  grayish  turbid  chyme 
is  changed  into  a  creamy-looking  fluid,  which  has  been  sometimes 
called  chyle.' 

"Now,  we  believe  that  butter  fat  is  especially  fitted  to  supply  these 
conditions.  Butter,  as  is  well  known,  readily  becomes  rancid,  and, 
no  doubt,  butter  contains  some  free  acid  very  shortly  after  being  made; 
but  we  will  consider  a  perfectly  fresh  specimen.  According  to  Lang, 
the  first  step  in  the  decomposition  of  butter  is  a  conversion  of  lactic 
acid  into  butyric.  The  second  is  the  breaking  up  of  butyrin  into 
butyric  acid  and  glycerin,  the  butyrin  furnishing  by  far  the  most 
free  acid — about  7  per  cent.  Thus  we  see  that  the  first  fat  in  the 
mixture  of  butter  to  break  up  outside  of  the  body  is  butyrin,  and 
doubtless  this  is  the  case  inside. 

"  J.  Bell  asserts  that  when  a  solution  of  alcohol  and  an  alkali  is  used 


138  OLEOMARGARINE. 

in  sufficient  quantity  to  saponify  all  the  butter  fat  treated,  the  alkaline 
base  unites  with  the  soluble  fatty  acids,  and  what  is  left  undecomposed 
are  the  fats  containing  the  insoluble  fatty  acids.  He  also  illustrates 
this  by  relating  an  actual  experiment.  This  strongly  corroborates  the 
supposition  that  it  is  the  butyrin  that  is  first  broken  up  in  the  stom- 
ach and  intestines. 

"We  have  »een  in  the  process  of  stomach  digestion  that  some  fat 
was  emulsionized  and  broken  up  into  its  acid  and  glycerin  constituents. 
So  we  have  butyric  acid  set  free  in  the  stomach  to  unite  with  a  base 
from  some  of  the  weaker  salts,  as  the  carbonates,  for  instance,  to  form 
a  very  soluble  soap  which  is  dissolved  by  the  bile  as  soon  as  it  comes 
in  contact  with  it,  and  thus  furnishing,  even  a  fresh  butter,  the  most 
favorable  conditions  for  starting  the  action  of  the  pancreatic  juice  upon 
fats.  Indeed  Roberts  claims  that  a  small  admixture  of  a  free  fatty 
acid  in  the  chyme,  together  with  the  agitation  produced  by  the  move- 
ments of  the  intestines,  is  sufficient  to  emulsify  fats  without  the  aid  of 
pancreatic  juice. 

"Routh  also  declares  the  same.  None  of  the  other  animal  fats  con- 
tain butyrin. 

"The  large  proportion  of  but}^rin  in  butter  and  its  nonoccurrence 
in  any  of  the  other  animal  fats,  together  with  the  volatility  of  its  acid, 
has  long  impressed  us  with  the  belief  that  it  had  some  important  office 
to  perform  in  the  digestive  process.  Under  this  belief  we  began  a 
series  of  experiments  upon  the  artificial  digestion  of  different  fats. 
Our  digestive  fluid  was  composed  of  5  grains  of  Fairchild  Bros,  and 
Foster's  'Extractum  pancreatis,'  5  grains  of  bicarbonate  of  soda  dis- 
solved in  10  c.  c.  of  distilled  water.  After  the  solution  was  complete 
we  added  half  a  dram  of  melted  fat. 

"The  whole  was  well  agitated  in  a  test  tube  and  placed  in  an  oven 
at  a  temperature  of  from  100  to  101°  F.  The  fats  experimented  on 
were  cod-liver  oil,  butter,  oleomargarine  butter,  the  commercial  oleo- 
margarine oil,  lard  oil,  benne  oil,  cotton-seed  oil,  lard,  and  mutton  and 
beef  suet.  The  cod-liver  oil  was  bought  from  a  reliable  drug  store. 

"Both  fresh  and  stale  butter  was  used,  and  was  such  as  we  had  made 
ourselves,  seeing  the  milk  from  which  it  was  made  drawn  from  the 
cow,  or  such  as  we  had  analyzed  ourselves  and  found  to  be  pure  cow's 
butter.  Fresh  and  stale  '  oleo '  was  used,  and  was  also  either  made  by 
ourselves  under  the  'Nathan'  patent,  which  'oleo'  contained  some  free 
acid,  or  was  that  which  we  had  analyzed.  The  oils  were  all  obtained  from 
'oleo'  makers  or  dealers  in  New  York  City.  Both  the  pure,  washed, 
dry  fats  of  the  butters  and  'oleos'  and  the  natural  products  were  com- 
pared, as  will  be  described  directly.  The  contents  of  the  test  tubes 
were  examined  under  a  microscope  at  intervals  of  one,  two,  three, 
four,  six,  twelve,  sixteen,  and  twenty  hours. 

"The  cod-liver  oil  nearly  always  showed  the  finest  emulsion. 

"Next,  and  the  difference  was  often  just  perceptible,  came  genuine 
butter.  'Oleo'  and  lard  oil  came  next,  there  being  frequently  no 
appreciable  difference  between  them,  but  between  the  butter  and  the 
'oleo'  there  was  a  marked  difference  at  the  end  of  each  period. 

"Fig.  4,  PI.  I,  and  fig.  1,  PI.  II,  shows  the  difference  between 
'oleo'  and  genuine  butter  after  being  acted  upon  by  the  digestive 
fluid  for  one  hour.  It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  no  emulsion  at  all 
of  the  '  oleo,'  while  the  butter  is  well  advanced. 

"Fig.  5,  PI.  I,  and  fig.  2,  PI.  II,  shows  the  same  at  the  end  of  four 


OLEOMARGARINE.  139 

hours.  It  is  seen  that  the  '  oleo '  is  not  nearly  as  much  emulsified  as 
the  butter  was  at  the  end  of  one  hour. 

uFig.  6,  PI.  I,  and  fig.  3,  PI.  II,  presents  the  same  at  the  end  of 
twelve  hours,  which  shows  that  the  'oleo'  is  but  a  trifle,  if  at  all,  fur- 
ther emulsionized  than  the  butter  was  at  the  end  of  the  four  hours. 

"It  will  be  further  noticed  that  the  globules  of  butter  are  finer, 
more  uniform,  containing  very  few  large  globules,  and  what  is  par- 
ticularly conspicuous  is  the  clearness  and  distinctness  of  the  butter 
globules.  They  are  well  defined,  sleek  looking,  and  have  a  clean-cut 
outline  which  strongly  intimates  that  they  would  go  through  an  ani- 
mal membrane — which  they  are  required  to  do,  as  will  be  seen  later 
on — quicker  than  'oleo,'  which  has  a  rough,  coarse,  ill-defined  appear- 
ance. This  holds  true  until  the  whole  is  saponified.  The  best  results 
were  obtained  after  exposing  the  fats  to  the  digestive  fluids  for  five  or 
six  hours  at  a  temperature  of  100°  F.,  then  allowing  the  whole  to 
stand  over  night  at  a  temperature  of  about  60°  F. ,  and  in  the  morning 
adding  an  equal  bulk  of  warm  water.  The  butter  then  presents  under 
the  microscope  a  most  perfect  emulsion.  The  globules  are  all  very 
minute,  grading  ofl'  into  almost  imperceptible  granules. 

"By  examining  the  corresponding  figures  on  the  different  plates  the 
comparative  digestibility  of  the  various  fats  and  oils  used  in  making 
artificial  butter  may  be  seen. 

"That  butyric  acid  does  have  some  important  role  to  play  in  the  ali- 
mentary canal  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  sugar  undergoes  butyric 
fermentation  in  the  small  intestines.  Yeo  says,  in  reference  to  this, 
'Some  of  the  sugar  in  the  intestines,  moreover,  undergoes  fermenta- 
tion, by  which  it  is  converted  into  lactic  and  butyric  acids.  How  much 
of  the  sugar  is  absorbed  as  lactic  and  butyric  acids  has  not  been  deter- 
mined, but  the  amount  of  sugar  found  in  the  portal  vessels  or  lac  teals 
does  not  at  all  correspond  with  the  amount  that  disappears  from  the 
cavity  of  the  intestines.' 

"Foster  saj^s,  'This  suggests  the  possibility  of  the  sugar  of  the 
intestinal  contents  undergoing  the  butyric  acid  fermentation  (during 
which,  as  is  well  known,  carbonic  anhydride  and  hydrogen  are  evolved), 
and  thus,  so  to  speak,  put  on  its  way  to  become  fat.  More- 

over, it  is  probable  that  by  other  fermentative  changes  a  considerable 
quantity  of  sugar  is  converted  into  lactic  acid,  since  this  acid  is  found 
in  increasing  quantities  as  the  food  descends  the  intestines.' 

"No  doubt  the  lactic  acid  is  con  verted  into  butyric  acid,  which,  in  turn, 
is  converted  into  soluble  soaps,  and  which  may  perform,  and  we  believe 
do  perform,  important  offices.  As  will  be  seen  further  on,  fat  is  often 
covered  with  soap,  when  absorbed,  and  soaps  are  found  in  the  chyle,  as 
well  as  some  fatty  acids.  Furthermore,  it  is  shown  that  fats  undergo 
still  further  emulsion  after  being  absorbed  while  passing  through  the 
lacteals  to  enter  the  general  circulation.  Now,  these  soaps  may  be,  and 
very  likely  are,  the  chief  agents  in  accomplishing  this.  One  of  the 
arguments  always  advanced  by  the  advocates  of  artificial  butter  is  that 
it  possesses  better  keeping  qualities  and  does  not  become  rancid,  and  is, 
therefore,  more  wholesome  than  rancid  butter.  Now,  it  is  true  that 
it  does  not  set  free  butyric  acid  (as  it  contains  no  butyrine),  which  gives 
the  rancidity  to  butter,  but,  as  it  contains  some  cellular  tissue  (in  our 
specimens  considerable),  it  undergoes  a  different  decomposition,  which 
is  liable  to  develop  the  septic  material  peculiar  to  dead  animal  matter, 
and  which  is  often  very  poisonous  to  human  beings.  On  the  other 


140  OLEOMARGARINE. 

hand,  rancid  butter  is  probably  more  readily  digested  than  fresh  and 
is  not  poisonous,  the  repugnance  to  it  being  simply  one  of  taste,  as  will 
be  seen  from  the  following,  taken  from  Roberts  by  Fothergill: 

UiThe  different  behavior  of  two  specimens  of  the  same  oil,  one 
perfectly  neutral  and  the  other  containing  a  little  free  fatty  acid,  is 
exceedingly  striking.  I  have  here  before  me  two  specimens  of  cod-liver 
oil;  one  of  them  is  a  fine  and  pure  pale  oil,  such  as  is  usually  dispensed 
by  the  better  class  of  chemists,  the  other  is  the  brown  oil  sent  out  under 
the  name  of  De  Jongh.  I  put  a  few  drops  of  each  of  those  into  two 
beakers,  and  pour  on  them  some  of  this  solution,  which  contains  2  per 
cent  of  bicarbonate  of  soda.  The  pale  oil,  you  see,  is  not  in  the  least 
emulsified;  it  rises  to  the  top  of  the  water  in  large,  clear  globules;  the 
brown  oil,  on  the  contrary,  yields  at  once  a  milky  emulsion.  The  pale 
oil  is  a  neutral  oil,  and  yields  no  acid  to  water  when  agitated  with  it — in 
other  words,  it  is  quite  free  from  rancidity — but  the  brown  oil  when 
treated  in  the  same  way  causes  the  water  with  which  it  is  shaken  to  red- 
den litmus  paper.  (' '  When  the  inhabitant  of  Arctic  regions  prefers  his 
fat  rancid,  probably  he  is  only  following  out  what  experience  has  taught 
him  is  good  in  his  liberal  consumption  of  fat.")  The  bearing  of  these 
observations  on  the  digestion  of  fat  is  plain.  When  the  contents  of  the 
stomach  pass  the  pylorus,  they  encounter  the  bile  and  pancreatic  juice, 
which  are  alkaline,  from  the  presence  in  them  of  carbonate  of  soda,  so 
that  the  fatty  ingredients  of  the  chyme,  if  they  only  contain  a  small 
admixture  of  free  fatty  acids,  are  at  once  placed  under  favorable  circum- 
stances for  the  production  of  an  emulsion  without  the  help  of  any  solu- 
ble ferment,  the  mere  agitation  of  the  contents  of  the  bowels  by  the 
peristaltic  action  being  sufficient  for  the  purpose.'  (Roberts.) 

""Possibly  some  fats  containing  a  large  proportion  of  oleine  emul- 
sionize  more  readily  than  others.  But  the  whole  subject  is  in  its 
infancy  so  far  as  our  acquaintance  with  it  is  concerned. 

"Cod-liver  oil  contains  about  l^V  per  cent  of  volatile  fatty  acid,  some 
of  which  is  butyric  acid.  This,  together  with  its  fluidity,  accounts  for 
its  easy  digestion  and  absorption. 

The  following  is  what  some  of  the  standard  authors  say  about  the 
digestibility  of  butter  and  other  fats: 

"  '  Like  other  fats  and  oils  it  (lard)  is  difficult  of  digestion,  and,  there- 
fore, is  sometimes  used  as  a  laxative  for  children,  and  for  its  protec- 
tive power  in  diarrhea,  dysentery,  etc.  It  has  been  pro- 
posed as  a  substitute  for  cod-liver  oil  in  the  treatment  of  phthisis  (con- 
sumption), but  its  indigestible  nature  unfits  it  for  this  purpose.' 

"'  Apart,  however,  from  the  deficiency  in  flavor,  it  is  doubtful 
whether  "butterine"  (artificial  butter)  can  be  said  to  fully  supply  the 
place  of  butter  as  an  article  of  diet.  When  the  highly  complex  and 
peculiar  character  of  the  constitution  of  butter  is  considered,  and  that 
it  is  the  fat  derived  from  or  natural  to  milk,  which  for  a  time  at 
least  is  the  principal  food  of  the  young,  it  is  probable  that  butter  per- 
forms some  more  specific  office  in  the  system  than  ordinary  fats.' 

"  As  before  stated,  fats  consist  of  a  fatty  acid  and  oxide  of  lipyl. 
In  the  adult  it  is  the  pancreas  which  effects  this  separation  into  these 
approximate  constituents.  We  all  know  that  if  this  change  does  not 
occur  the  fat  passes  off  unchanged  by  the  bowels;  and,  as  Bernard  has 
shown,  the  expulsion  of  fat  is  one  of  the  surest  indications  of  dis- 
eased pancreas.  In  the  infant,  judging  from  the  want  of  development 


OLEOMARGARINE.  141 

of  the  salivary  glands,  the  pancreas  probably  does  not  suffice  to  the 
complete  performance  of  this  function. 

"It  is  here  that  we  remark  one  of  those  wonderful  adaptations  of 
nature.  First,  in  butter  we  have  excess  of  a  free  fatty  acid;  there- 
fore rendering  the  assimilation  of  it  possible  without  the  assistance  of 
the  pancreas. 

"  ;Anoth*er  way  in  which  this  emulsion  of  fat  can  be  accomplished  is 
by  giving  the  patient,  not  fats,  properly  so  called,  but  the  fatty  acids 
of  which  they  are  composed,  and  which  are  very  readily  absorbed  into 
the  system.  The  good  effects  of  cod-liver  oil  are  probably  in  some 
measure  due  to  the  excess  of  fatty  acids  present.  So,  also,  those  of 
butter;  it  is  indeed  a  matter  of  popular  observation  that  many  children 
grow  fat  upon  bread  and  butter.  They  appear  to  thrive  on  it  when 
other  means  fail.  This  good  effect  can  not  be  due  simply  to  bread, 
for  reasons  before  stated,  but  to  the  free  acid,  which  is  also  in  excess 
in  butter. 

"  'It  (butter)  is  the  best  known  of  all  this  class  of  substances  (fats), 
but  it  is  eaten  in  very  different  quantities,  from  the  large  cupful 
before  breakfast,  as  drank  by  the  Bedouins,  near  the  Red  Sea  and  the 
Persian  Gulf,  to  the  scarcely  perceptible  layer  on  the  bread  eaten  by 
the  needlewomen  of  London,  and  the  supply  is  limited  by  pecuniary 
means  rather  than  desire.  It  is  also  the  form  of  separated  fat  which 
is  less  frequently  disliked  by  consumptive  people  and  invalids  gen- 
erally, as  was  shown  by  me  in  an  inquiry  into  the  state  of  1,000  patients 
at  the  Hospital  for  Consumption,  Brompton.' 

"In  answer  to  a  letter  of  ours,  Professor  Stelle,  of  Philadelphia, 
says: 

'"If  you  care  for  my  personal  opinion,  it  is  that  fresh  butter  and 
fresh  olive  oil  are  the  most  digestible  of  fatty  bodies;  next  to  them 
comes  lard,  and,  finally,  tallow.' 

"Finally,  it  is  a  matter  of  common  observation  among  physicians 
that  natural  butter  is  taken  by  invalids,  especially  consumptives,  when 
other  fats,  even  cod-liver  oil,  can  not  be  tolerated. 

"It  is  important  to  know  that  the  approval  given  to  Mege's  oleo- 
margarine as  an  article  of  food  by  the  council  of  health  of  Paris  in 
1872,  on  the  strength  of  the  favorable  report  made  by  M.  Felix 
Baudet  (an  abstract  of  which  is  given  on  page  30  of  this  report),  was 
morally,  at  least,  withdrawn  in  consequence  of  a  report  of  an  investi- 
gation made  by  a  commission  of  the  Academy  of  Medicine  for  the 
prefect  of  the  Seine  disapproving  of  the  article  for  use  except  to  a 
limited  extent  in  cooking,  on  the  ground  of  its  comparative  indi- 
gestibility.  It  was  never  allowed  to  be  sold  in  the  public  markets  of 
Paris  except  under  its  own  name.  Its  sale  is  now  prohibited  in  the 
public  markets. 

"The  insolubility  of  those  artificial  butters  made  from  animal  fats 
is  another  potent  quality  for  rendering  them  indigestible.  In  man  the 
digestive  process  is  carried  on  with  greater  rapidity  than  in  any  of  the 
lower  animals,  and  the  gastric  juice  acts  upon  food  from  the  outside 
towards  the  center — that  is,  it  does  not  soak  the  material  and  exert  its 
solvent  action  upon  the  whole  of  it  at  the  same  time;  consequently  the 
greater  amount  of  surface  of  food  directly  exposed,  the  more  rapid  its 
digestion.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  it  is  so  necessary  for  man  to  carry 
out  the  process  of  mastication  thoroughly.  It  is  for  this  reason  also 


142  OLEOMARGARINE. 


that  some  people  experience  distress  after  eating  eggs  boiled  just  hard, 
but  none  after  eating  them  soft  boiled,  or  after  being  boiled  for  some 
time,  when  they  become  '  mealy.'  The  difference  in  the  digestion  of  an 
egg  is  again  felt  when  eaten  raw  without  beating,  and  when  it  is  beaten. 
The  beating  mixes  the  albumen  with  the  air,  rendering  it  porous. 

"The  artificial  butter  made  from  animal  fats,  although  the  olein  and 
palmitin  are  separated  as  much  as  possible  by  pressure,  will  not 
liquefy  at  the  stomach  temperature,  as  is  demonstrated  by  the  follow- 
ing experiments:  We  placed  in  an  oven  kept  at  a  temperature  of  from 
100  to  104°  F.  four  beakers  containing,  respectively,  pure  butter,  oleo- 
margarine butter,  oleomargarine  oil  (commercial),  and  lard  oil,  about 
20  drams  of  each,  and  which  were  all  of  the  temperature  of  about  60° 
F.  when  taken.  At  the  expiration  of  thirty-five  minutes,  and  the  tem- 
perature at  100°,  the  butter  presented  a  clear,  limpid  appearance,  but 
the  others  remained  solid,  being  but  very  little  affected;  and  at  the 
end  of  five  hours,  the  temperature  being  from  101  to  104°  F.  ,  they 
were  in  a  semisolid  condition,  the  oleomargarine  oil  being  most  soft- 
ened, the  oleo  butter  next,  and  the  lard  the  least  softened. 

"  These  insoluble  fats,  then,  must  interfere  with  digestion  in  two 
ways  —  first,  by  not  being  acted  upon  themselves  by  the  gastric  juice, 
and,  second,  by  being  thoroughly  mixed  with  the  other  foods  in  the 
mouth,  they  form  an  impervious  covering  to  them,  thereby  preventing 
the  gastric  juice  from  coming  in  direct  contact  with  them. 

"Randolph  says  that  'a  further  reason  that  the  fats,  especially  when 
cooked  with  other  foods,  are  frequently  found  to  be  unwholesome,  is 
that  in  the  process  of  cooking  they  so  surround  and  saturate  the  tissues 
of  the  substance  with  which  they  are  combined  that  it  is  rendered 
nearly  inaccessible  to  the  action  of  the  saliva  and  gastric  juice,  and  at 
times  digestion  is  in  so  far  delayed  that  the  fried  substance  does  not 
become  entirely  freed  from  this  more  or  less  impervious  coating  of 
fat  until  subjected  to  the  action  of  the  pancreatic  juice.' 

"This  retards  digestion  and  prevents  that  increased  flow  of  gastric 
juice  which  follows  the  absorption  in  the  stomach  of  the  first  portion 
of  food  digested,  as  is  shown  to  be  the  case  by  Heidenhains  experiment, 
and  also  deprives  the  proteids  of  that  aid  in  their  digestion  which  fats 
are  declared  to  render. 

"In  experimenting  with  gastric  festulse  on  different  dogs,  for 
example,  we  have  found  in  one  instance,  like  Dr.  Beaumont,  that  the 
gastric  juice  was  always  entirely  absent  in  the  intervals  of  digestion; 
the  mucous  membrane  then  presenting  invariably  either  a  neutral  or 
slightly  alkaline  reaction.  In  this  animal,  which  was  a  perfectly  healthy 
one,  the  secretion  could  not  be  excited  by  any  artificial  means,  such  as 
glass  rods,  metallic  catheters,  and  the  like,  but  only  by  the  natural 
stimulus  of  digested  food.  Tough  and  indigestible  pieces  of  tendon 
introduced  through  the  fistula,  were  expelled  again  in  a  few  minutes, 
one  after  the  other,  without  exciting  the  flow  of  a  single  drop  of  acid 
fluid,  while  pieces  of  fresh  meat  introduced  in  the  same  way  produced 
at  once  an  abundant  supply. 

•  "After  food  has  been  changed  by  the  act  of  digestion  it  is  required 
to  enter  the  current  of  blood  before  it  can  fulfill  its  office  of  nourish- 
ing the  body.  In  order  to  do  this  it  must  pass  through  the  walls  of  the 
alimentary  canal,  which  passage  constitutes  the  process  of  '  absorption.' 

"While  absorption  may  take  place  through  any  part  of  the  body 
containing  blood  and  lymph  vessels  and  not  covered  with  a  hard, 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  143 

thickened  cuticle  like  the  palms  of  the  hand  and  the  soles  of  the  feet, 
yet  the  locality  especially  adapted  to  it  is  the  upper  part  of  the  small 
intestine.  Here  the  lining  membrane  is  thrown  into  numerous  folds 
in  order  to  increase  the  amount  of  surface,  and  covered  with  myriads 
of  minute  projections  resembling  the  pile  of  velvet  which  are  techni- 
cally called  villi.  Each  little  villus  constitutes  an  absorbent  gland. 
Its  surface  is  covered  with  columnar  epithelial  cells  containing  pro- 
toplasm, and  also  little  rod-like  projections  extending  from  their  free 
extremities. 

' 4  These  cells  rest  upon  a  basement  membrane  which  contains  mus- 
cular tissue  so  arranged  as  to  aid  in  carrying  along  the  solid  particles 
of  food  on  their  passage  to  the  lacteals  and  blood  vessels. 

"This  membrane  incloses  a  framework  of  connective  tissue,  in  which 
are  contained  the  blood  vessels  and  lacteals.  The  blood  vessels  are 
arranged  in  the  form  of  latticework  around  the  lacteals,  which  latter 
contain  no  perceptible  openings.  Now,  fat  is  the  only  element  of  food 
that  is  absorbed  in  the  form  of  solid  particles,  at  least  to  any  extent, 
and  therefore  would  seem  to  be  the  most  difficult  of  absorption.  This 
absorption  of  solid  particles  of  fat  has  indeed  always  been  a  puzzle  to 
physiologists.  The  peptones  and  sugar  are  almost  wholly  liquefied 
and  can  not  be  recognized  by  the  microscope  after  entering  the  lacteals, 
but  fat  is  seen  after  reaching  the  lacteals  in  a  very  minute  state  of 
division.  On  the  principle  of  osmosis,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how 
liquid  foods  are  absorbed.  Some  physiologists  believe  that  the  epithe- 
lium covering  the  villus  is  prolongated,  so  to  speak,  into  the  central 
lacteal  vesicle  and  that  the  fat  granules  pass  not  through  but  between 
the  epithelial  cells  along  this  prolongation  of  protoplasm,  and  so  reach 
the  lacteal.  Others  believe  that  they  pass  through  the  cell  by  being 
taken  up  by  the  protoplasm  in  the  manner  in  which  an  amoeba  takes 
its  food,  and  passed  on  to  the  lacteals  by  this  protoplasmic  agent,  being 
aided  by  contraction  of  the  muscular  element  in  the  villus.  The  lat- 
ter theory  is  the  most  satisfactory,  and  probably  the  most  modern.  It 
is  also  believed  that  the  layer  of  rods  or  pores  projecting  from  the  free 
surface  of  the  epithelium  has  to  do  with  the  absorption  of  fats. 
Whichever  theory  is  correct,  it  seems  plain  to  us  that  the  finer  the  par- 
ticles of  fat  the  more  readily  will  they  be  absorbed.  Moreover,  it  is 
well  known  that  an  animal  membrane  moistened  with  water  will  not 
allow  the  passage  of  emulsionized  fat,  but  when  moistened  with  bile 
fat  passes  through  it.  From  this  fact  it  is  quite  probable  that  the 
soaps  formed,  as  previously  described,  perform  important  work  in  con- 
nection with  the  absorption  of  fat. 

"Yeo  says  in  reference  to  this :  'It  has  therefore  been  suggested 
that  the  epithelial  cells  of  the  mucous  membrane  are  more  or  less 
moistened  with  bile,  and  the  particles  of  fat  in  the  emulsion  are  also 
coated  with  a  film  of  bile  or  soap.  Thus  they  are  enabled  to  pass  into 
the  epithelial  cells,  in  which  they  can  be  detected  during  digestion. 
The  bile  or  soapy  coating  of  the  fat  particles  may  no  doubt  aid  in  their 
transit  through  the  various  obstacles  on  their  way  to  the  lacteal  radicles. ' 

u  I  know  of  but  few  actual  experiments  upon  human  beings  as  to 
the  comparative  absorptivity  of  butter  and  other  fats,  but  it  is  fair  to 
assume  from  the  foregoing  circumstances  that  butter  is  much  more 
readily  absorbed  than  its  sham  congeners.  Rubner  ascertained  that 
butter  was  much  more  readily  absorbed  than  ham  fat.  Randolph  says 
that  cod-liver  oil  is  absorbed  with  the  greatest  ease  and  to  a  greater 


144 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


degree  than  any  of  the  other  fats,  and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  vege- 
table oils  are  the  least  readily  absorbed. 

"A.  Mayer  experimented  to  determine  whether  natural  or  artificial 
butter  was  the  easiest  absorbed  by  the  system.  He  took  a  man  and  a 
boy  and  fed  them  for  three  days  on  various  mixtures  of  bread,  milk, 
eggs,  and  vegetables,  together  with  natural  butter.  Then  followed 
two  days'  rest,  they  being  fed  on  ordinary  diet;  after  which  for  three 
days  they  were  given  precisely  the  same  food  as  on  the  first  three 
days,  except  artificial  was  substituted  for  natural  butter.  Each  suc- 
cessive day  of  the  experiment  the  solid  evacuations  were  collected  and 
analyzed,  commencing  twenty-four  hours  after  the  beginning  of  the 
experiment.  The  amount  of  fat  in  the  excrements  was  estimated, 
which  determined  the  amount  of  fat  that  had  been  absorbed.  The 
following  is  the  percentage  of  the  amount  absorbed: 


First  day. 

Second 
day. 

Third 
day. 

MAN. 

Natural  butter  .  .                          .     . 

97 

99  4 

98  7 

Artificial  butter 

94  6 

97  9 

96  7 

BOY. 

Natural  butter  

97  8 

94  8 

98  7 

Artificial  butter  

93  3 

94  g 

97  6 

"It  will  be  seen^  therefore,  that  the  average  was  about  1.6  per  cent 
less  of  the  artificial  absorbed  than  of  the  natural.  The  greatest  differ- 
ence was  2. 5  per  cent  less  of  the  artificial.  The  experimenter  concludes 
that  except  in  sickness  this  trifling  difference  may  be  overlooked  with 
safety. 

"Of  course,  these  experiments  were  not  carried  on  long  enough  to 
be  of  much  value,  but  as  far  as  they  go  they  harmonize  exactly  with 
our  idea  of  the  difference  in  the  absorption  of  these  two  articles.  If 
this  difference  was  manifest  in  three  days,  we  would  expect  a  very 
much  greater  difference  in  three  months. 

"  Magendie's  experiments  on  dogs  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the 
effect  of  feeding  nothing  but  fat  incidentally  shows  a  striking  differ- 
ence in  the  life-sustaining  power  between  butter  and  lard.  He  used 
two  dogs  for  the  experiment.  One  he  fed  butter  and  the  other  lard. 
The  first  lived  sixty-eight,  the  second  fifty-six  days;  that  is,  the  dog  fed 
on  butter  lived  twelve  days  longer  than  the  other,  or  one-fourth  of  the 
whole  time  which  the  other  dog  lived. 

"The  liability  of  conveying  disease  germs  into  the  human  system 
through  artificial  butter  is,  in  our  opinion,  greater  than  is  supposed  by 
those  not  familiar  with  the  subject.  In  the  first  place,  investigations 
are  showing  that  many  more  diseases  than  was  formerly  supposed  are 
communicable  from  animal  to  man.  The  following  are  some  of  those 
known  to  be  such:  Consumption,  anthrax,  trichinosis,  tapeworm, 
glanders,  foot-and-mouth  disease,  cowpox,  hydrophobia,  etc.  Many 
more,  as  epidemic  pleuro-pneumonia,  smallpox  of  sheep,  splenic 
apoplexy,  braxy  of  sheep,  typhus,  etc.,  have,  when  the  flesh  of  ani- 
mals suffering  from  them  was  eaten,  produced  serious  sickness  in 
human  beings. 

4 '  We  would  like  to  give  the  history  of  these  diseases  and  also  of  the 
cases  of  the  sickness  resulting  from  consumption  of  the  flesh  of  these 


OLEOMARGARINE.  145 

diseased  animals,  for  we  think  the  effect  would  be  to  startle  the  popu- 
lace and  to  induce  it  to  lend  a  heartier  support  to  those  public  officers 
to  whom  has  been  assigned  the  duty  of  preventing  unwholesome  food 
being  sold  to  it;  but  the  want  of  time  prevents.  We  must  content  our- 
selves with  a  brief  reference  to  some  points  bearing  directly  upon  the 
subject  in  hand.  The  manner  in  which  trichinae  can  get  into  artificial 
butter  can  easily  be  seen  from  the  following:  When  the  animal  takes 
a  cyst  containing  a  trichina  into  its  stomach  the  cyst  is  dissolved  by  the 
gastric  juice,  which  sets  the  trichina  free,  when  it  passes  out  of  the 
stomach  into  the  intestine,  where  it  develops  in  from  a  week  to  ten 
days,  and  the  female  deposits  her  embryos — from  60  to  2,000  for  each 
female  trichina.  The  young  trichinae  then  make  their  way  through 
the  connective  tissue  to  the  muscles.  Trichinae  are  found  in  hogs, 
cattle,  and  sheep.  Now,  if  those  animals  are  killed  during  the  migra- 
tory stage,  the  caul  fat  would  doubtless  contain  the  parasite.  Dr.  Bil- 
lings says  he  has  frequently  found  encysted  trichinae  in  the  adipose 
tissue  between  muscular  tissue  of  very  fat  hogs,  but  not  in  the  fat 
lying  upon  the  muscles.  He  states,  however,  that  Professor  Taylor, 
of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  at  Washington,  has  seen  in  the 
journal  of  the  Miscroscopical  Association  that  they  have  been  found  in 
fat.  Everyone  is  aware  of  the  dangerous  character  of  this  disease. 

"A  tapeworm  is  developed  from  a  kind  of  germ  called  a  cysticercus. 
These  are  of  different  varieties,  and  are  found  in  the  solid  parts  of 
hogs,  cattle,  and  sheep.  Animals  infested  with  these  germs  are  said 
to  have  the  measles.  A  cysticercus  is  developed  from  the  egg  of  a 
tapeworm.  The  fully  matured  tapeworm  is  developed  in  two  separate 
stages,  as  follows:  The  eggs  of  the  worm  pass  out  of  the  body  and  are 
eaten  by  a  man  or  another  animal.  They  then  find  their  way  into  the 
solid  tissues  of  this  animal,  when  they  develop  into  cysticerci,  and  so 
remain  until  the  cysticerci  are  again  taken  into  the  intestines  of  another 
animal  or  man,  where  they  reach  their  full  development  as  a  tapeworm. 
Now,  the  heat  applied  to  the  fats  employed  in  making  artificial  butter 
is  not  sufficient  to  destroy  these  germs,  as  most  of  them  are  treated  at 
a  temperature  below  140°  F. ,  as  is  seen  from  the  abstracts.  One  patent 
for  making  a  compound  to  substitute  butter  for  cooking  purposes 
requires  a  temperature  of  190°  to  200°  F.  One  other  for  c  improve- 
ment in  shortening  for  culinary  uses '  uses  a  heat  of  400°  F.  Six  for 
purifying  and  bleaching  tallow,  lard,  etc.,  heats  to  140°,  150°,  200°, 
200°,  200°,  and  347°  F.,  respectively. 

"Much  interest  is  manifested  at  the  present  time  in  regard  to  germs 
and  their  destruction,  and  as  is  always  the  case  with  new  subjects  there 
is  some  difference  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  efficacy  of  different  dis- 
infecting agents.  The  following  will  give  some  idea  of  the  amount  of 
heat  required  to  kill  disease  germs: 

:4Toussaint  showed  by  experiment  that  the  tuberculous  element  was 
not  confined  to  the  diseased  localities,  but  were  diffused  through  all  the 
tissues,  and  that  the  juice  of  the  flesh  of  a  consumptive  animal  had 
produced  a  disease  in  others  after  having  been  heated  to  50°  or  60°  C. 
(122°  to  140°  F.),  the  temperature  of  roasting  beef,  and  that  when  given 
in  very  small  doses. 

"Referring  to  these  experiments,  Bartley  says:  'Considering  the 
facts  in  this  light,  we  ought  to  establish  no  degrees  in  tuberculosis; 
when  it  exists  it  renders  the  consumption  of  flesh  dangerous.' 

"In  reference  to  trichinae,  some  observers,  as  Vallin,  state  that  a 

S.  Rep.  2043 10 


1 46  OLEOMAEG  AKINE. 

temperature  of  129  to  133°  F.  kills  most  of  them,  and  that  140°  F.  is 
safe;  but  Collin  found  living  trichinae  in  half  a  pound  of  steak  that 
had  been  boiled  for  ten  minutes,  presenting  a  white  appearance  when 
cut,  having  no  red  points,  and  discovered  trichinae  in  the  intestines  of 
a  bird  after  having  been  fed  upon  it. 

' '  Pasteur  asserts  that  an  exposure  for  ten  minutes  to  a  temperature 
of  129.2°  F.  will  kill  anthrax  rods,  but  spores  resist  prolonged  boiling. 
The  spores  develop  in  the  rods  rapidly  after  the  death  of  the  animal, 
under  proper  conditions,  and  will  remain  active  for  years.  They  are 
not  destroyed  by  drying  or  putrefaction  when  exposed  to  oxygen 
(Maguire). 

"Klein  also  affirms  that  the  anthrax  spores  will  resist  prolonged 
boiling. 

"Vantieghem  is  quoted  by  Magnin  as  saying  that  a  temperature  of 
121°  F.  is  fatal  to  most  bacteria;  but  he  has  studied  the  bacillus  that 
is  able  to  multiply  and  form  spores  in  a  culture  fluid  at  165.2°  F.,  but 
which  cease  to  multiply  at  171.5°  F.  Magnin  also  states  as  coming 
from  Lebedeff  that  septic  blood  does  not  lose  its  virulence  at  the  end 
of  forty  days,  or  by  being  heated  to  the  boiling  point  (212°  F.)  for 
from  three  to  twenty-four  hours,  and  that  the  bacteria  in  it  are  capa- 
ble of  multiplying  after  such  exposure. 

"Arloing  and  Chauveau  have  found  what  they  consider  to  be  the 
bacillus  causing  gangrenous  septicaemia.  When  fresh  it  is  destroyed 
by  a  temperature  of  from  194  to  212°  F. ,  but  when  dried  it  required 
248°  F. 

"The  heat  to  be  trusted  for  destroying  pathogenic  germs  in  practice 
will  be  seen  from  the  following: 

"Dr.  Van  Bush,  of  Berlin,  used  a  temperature  of  149°  to  167°  F. 
for  the  destruction  of  puerperal-fever  contagion.  The  late  Dr.  Elisha 
Harris,  in  1859,  employed  a  temperature  at  and  above  212°  F.  to  dis- 
infect clothes  of  yellow-fever  subjects.  He  quotes  Dr.  William  Henry 
as  saying  that  '  the  infectious  matter  of  cowpox  is  rendered  inert  by 
a  temperature  not  below  140°  F. ,  from  whence  it  is  inferred  that  more 
active  contagion  is  probably  destructible  at  temperatures  not  exceed- 
ing 212°  F.' 

"Dr.  Henry  could  not  communicate  typhus  after  exposing  flannel 
shirts  to  204°  F. ;  same  with  scarlet  fever.  He  says :  '  The  experiments 
which  we  have  related  appear  to  be  sufficiently  numerous  to  prove  that 
by  exposure  to  a  temperature  not  below  200°  F.  during  at  least  one 
hour  the  contagious  matter  of  scarlatina  is  rather  dissipated  or 
destroyed.' 

"The  following  circular,  issued  to  the  customs  officers  December 22, 
1884,  shows  what  temperature  is  considered  safe  by  the  Government: 
6  All  circulars  of  the  Department  concerning  the  importation  of  old  rags 
are  modified  as  follows:  No  old  rags,  except  afloat  on  or  before  Janu- 
ary 1,  1885,  on  vessels  bound  directly  to  the  United  States,  shall  be 
landed  in  the  United  States  from  any  vessel,  nor  come  into  the  United 
States  by  land,  from  any  foreign  country,  except  upon  disinfection  at 
the  expense  of  the  importers,  as  provided  in  this  circular  or  may  here- 
after be  provided. 

"  'Either  of  the  following  processes  will  be  considered  a  satisfactory 
method  of  disinfection  of  old  rags,  and  will  entitle  them  to  entry  and 
to  be  landed  in  the  United  States  upon  the  usual  permit  of  the  local 
health  officer,  viz: 


OLEOMARGARINE.  147 

"  '1.  Boiling  in  water  for  two  hours  under  a  pressure  of  50  pounds 
per  square  inch. 

"  '2.  Boiling  in  water  for  four  hours  with  pressure. 

"  '3.  Subjection  to  the  action  of  confined  sulphurous-acid  gas  for  six 
hours,  burning  li  or  2  pounds  roll  brimstone  in  each  1,000  cubic  feet 
of  space,  with  the  rags  well  scattered  upon  racks. 

"  '  4.  Disinfection  in  the  bale  by  means  of  perforated  screws  or  tubes 
through  which  sulphur  dioxide  or  superheated  steam  at  a  temperature 
of  not  less  than  330  degrees  shall  be  forced  under  a  pressure  of  four 
atmospheres  for  a  period  sufficient  to  insure  thorough  disinfection,'  etc. 

"James  A.  Russell,  in  Quain's  Dictionary  of  Medicine,  says:  'It  is 
extremely  improbable  that  any  contagium  can  withstand  a  temperature 
of  220°  F.  (104.5  C.),  maintained  during  two  hours.  When  contagium 
is  shielded  by  thick  material  into  which  heat  penetrates  slowly,  the  time 
necessary  to  reach  the  disinfection  temperature  may  be  long,  and  hence 
the  necessity  for  spreading  clothing  and  opening  out  bedding  in  special 
hot-air  chambers,  where  the  heat  ought  not  to  be  less  than  220°  F. 
(104.5  C.)  nor  more  than  250°  F.  (112.1  C.).' 

"The  following  is  an  abstract  from  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
disinfectants  of  the  American  Public  Health  Association:  '  The  experi- 
mental evidence  recorded  in  these  reports  seems  to  justify  the  following 
conclusions:  The  most  useful  agents  for  destruction  of  spore-contain- 
ing infectious  materials  are : 

"  '1.  Fire,  complete  destruction  by  burning.  , 

"  '2.  Steam  under  pressure,  230°  F.,  for  ten  minutes. 

"  C3.  Boiling  in  water  for  one  hour.' 

"For  the  destruction  of  infectious  material  which  owes  its  infecting 
power  to  micro-organisms  not  containing  spores,  the  committee  recom- 
mended: 

"'1.  Fire,  complete  destruction  by  burning. 

"  '2.  Boiling  in  water  half  an  hour. 

"  '  3.  Dry  heat,  230°  F.,  for  two  hours,'  etc. 

"It  is  alleged  by  the  makers  of  artificial  butter  that  the  fats  from 
animals  dying  from  disease  could  not  be  used  in  making  these  articles, 
as  they  would  'stink'  and  taint  the  product,  and  the  deodorization 
would  not  remove  said  stink,  etc.  This  is  false,  for  we  have  tasted 
and  smelled  of  oil  made  from  horses  and  dogs  picked  up  in  the  streets 
of  New  York  and  Brooklyn,  dead  of  disease,  and  it  had  no  unpleasant 
taste  or  appearance;  in  fact,  tastes  as  sweet  as  pure  dried  butter  fat. 
And,  too,  the  suspicion  is  growing  stronger  and  stronger  among  those 
who  are  cognizant  of  the  facts  that  those  oils  go  into  the  artificial 
butters.  Why  should  so  much  pains  be  taken  to  render  a  sweet,  clear 
oil  from  dead  horses  and  dogs?  This  would  be  adding  unnecessary 
expense  if  it  was  intended  for  lubricating  purposes,  and  we  do  not 
hear  of  its  being  commonly  used  in  soap  making. 

: '  The  following  letter,  in  answer  to  one  from  us,  will  tell  its  own 
story : 

"BROOKLYN,  N.  Y.,  January  18,  1886. 

"  DEAR  DOCTOR:  In  reply  to  yours  of  the  12th  instant  I  would  say 
that  all  I  can  say  of  the  oil  I  showed  in  New  York  was  that  it  was 
manufactured  on  Newtown  Creek,  by  Mr.  Henry  Beran.  Mr.  Beran 
has  the  contract  for  the  dead  animals  and  offal  of  the  city  of  Brooklyn. 
The  oil  in  question  was  made  from  the  comb  fat  (so  called)  of  horses — 
that  is,  from  the  top  part  of  the  neck  of  horses — which  were  obtained 


148  OLEOMARGARINE. 

from  this  city  and  tried  out  by  the  contractor.  The  horses  were  such 
as  die  in  every  city  from  both  accident  and  disease.  There  were  a 
large  number  of  horses  killed  in  Brooklyn  last  year  that  were  suffer- 
ing  with  glanders.  Whether  any  of  these  horses  helped  to  make  up 
this  oil  I  do  not  know;  nor  does  Mr.  Beran.  The  specimen  I  had  in 
New  York  was  a  very  fine  oil,  and  it  shows  that  an  oil  can  be  made 
from  dead  horses  which  in  taste  and  naked-eye  appearances  is  as  palat- 
able as  the  best  '  oleo '  oil. 

"Mr.  Beran  has  told  me  that  he  is  satisfied  that  some  of  his  oil  has 
been  used  for  the  manufacture  of  'oleo'  butter.  He  has  always  been 
very  careful  about  telling  me  to  whom  he  sells  it,  and  he  evidently 
thinks  it  is  used  for  that  purpose;  in  fact,  he  says  he  knows  it  has.  I 
give  this  as  his  own  statement,  and  for  what  it  is  worth.  I  could  not 
prove  it.  From  the  odor,  taste,  etc. ,  of  this  oil  I  am  of  the  opinion 
that  it  can  be  used  to  make  'oleomargarine,'  and  that  its  use  for  that 
purpose  ought  to  be  strongly  condemned.  I  also  hold  that  the  use  of 
lard  tried  out  at  a  temperature  below  130°  F.,  should  be  prohibited. 
Hoping  this  will  answer  your  questions,  I  am, 
"Very  sincerely,  yours, 

"E.  H.  BARTLEY,  M.  D. 

' '  It  might  be  asked  if  natural  butter  was  not  exposed  to  the  same 
contamination.  We  answer  that  it  is  not;  for,  in  the  first  place,  the 
fat  of  milk  is  doubtless  manufactured  in  the  gland  by  the  metabolic 
action1  of  the  protoplasmic  cells,  and  consequently  would  not  be  apt  to 
contain  disease  germs  even  if  they  were  in  the  cow's  system,  unless  the 
udder  itself  was  diseased.  Then,  too,  it  is  difficult  to  make  good  butter 
from  a  diseased  cow;  and  but  few  farmers  would  risk  their  reputation 
by  selling  butter  made  from  sick  cattle.  Furthermore,  I  am  unable 
to  find  a  single  authentic  instance  where  milk  butter  has  produced  any 
serious  sickness,  which,  in  consideration  of  the  length  of  time  it  has 
been  known,  is  significant. 

' k  Dr.  Alfred  Hill,  on  account  of  assertions  being  made  that  the  milk 
quickly  became  rancid  and  produced  typhoid  fever,  and  that  the  but- 
ter was  very  offensive  which  came  from  cows  that  had  been  partly  fed 
on  sewage  grass,  made  a  thorough  examination  of  the  milk  and  its  but- 
ter which  came  from  the  Birmingham  Sewage  Farm,  and  found  that 
the  keeping  and  other  qualities  of  the  milk  were  not  in  the  least  infe- 
rior to  ordinary  milk.  In  regard  to  the  butter,  he  says:  'In  order  to 
test  the  quality  of  the  butter  made  from  it,  I  requested  the  wife  of  the 
farm  manager,  who  thoroughly  understands  butter  making  (although 
no  butter  is  ordinarily  made  on  the  sewage  farm),  to  make  a  churning 
for  me,  which  she  was  kind  enough  to  do.  The  resulting  butter  was 
excellent  in  quality  and  retained  its  sweetness  and  other  properties  as 
well  as  other  fresh  butter,  although  the  weather  at  the  time  was  exces- 
sively hot;  so  that  the  conditions  of  the  experiment  were  as  unfavora- 
ble as  possible.' 

"When  we  look  over  the  ingredients  used  in  making  artificial  butter 
or  preparing  the  fats  and  oils  for  the  same,  and  find  such  powerful 
acids  as  sulphuric,  nitric,  benzoic,  salicylic,  etc.,  and  such  alkalies  as 
caustic  soda,  bicarbonate  of  soda,  carbonate  of  ammonia,  saleratus,  sal 
soda,  etc.,  and  such  drugs  as  sugar  of  lead,  alum,  carbonate  of  potash, 
nitrate  of  soda,  sulphate  of  soda,  borax,  niter,  etc.,  and  such  easily 
decomposed  material  as  slippery-elm  bark,  rennet,  yolk  of  eggs,  cow's 
udder,  fresh  vegetable  pulps,  etc.,  mixed  with  it,  and  after  having 


OLEOMAKGAEINE.  149 

prepared  this  stuff  according  to  the  specifications  of  certain  patents, 
we  can  not  repel  the  conviction  that  the  greatest  care  must  be  exer- 
cised or  they  will  contaminate  the  product.  By  referring  to  patent 
No.  263199,  it  will  be  seen  that  about  150  pounds  of  melted  lard  is 
thoroughly  'washed' — that  is,  mixed — with  60  gallons  of  ice  water 
holding  in  solution  3  ounces  of  nitric  acid  (strong)  and  borax.  The 
lard  solidifies  in  this  solution,  and  while  solid  is  washed  in  60  gallons  of 
ice  water.  Every  time  this  quantity  of  fat  is  washed  in  the  acid  water 
1  ounce  more  of  nitric  acid  is  added,  which  shows  that  this  amount 
of  nitric  acid  is  considered  to  be  taken  up  by  the  lard.  In  the  manu- 
facture of  '  oleo '  under  this  patent  from  5  to  50  per  cent  of  this 
deodorized  lard  is  added  to  commercial  oleomargarine  oil. 

' '  The  whole  is  then  subjected  to  a  heat  of  95°  F.  (which  is  not  sufficient 
to  melt  it)  and  churned  with  milk  or  cream,  sugar,  and  coloring  mat- 
ter. It  is  then  treated  with  ice  water,  which  causes  it  to  rapidly  and 
completely  solidify.  After  mixing  thoroughly  and  salting  it  is  ready 
for  market. 

'  *  It  will  be  seen  by  this  process  that  the  fat,  after  being  treated 
with  nitric  acid,  is  never  again  subjected  to  a  thorough  washing,  and 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  fats  possess  the  property  of  retaining  free 
acids  with  remarkable  tenacity,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  marketed 
product  does  not  contain  nitric  acid. 

"The  following  is  the  conclusion  of  Nothnagel  and  Rossbach  concern- 
ing the  effect  of  small,  greatly  diluted  doses  of  acids: 

"  '  When  acids  are  used  for  too  long  a  time  the  appetite  and  digestion 
are  finally  injured  and  a  series- of  pathological  conditions  result. 

"  'It  is  readily  supposable  that  the  long-continued  administration  of 
diluted  mineral  acids  to  the  living  organism  leads  to  the  decomposition 
of  the  alkaline  combinations  with  the  weaker  acids,  e.  g.,  carbonic 
acid,  or  with  the  albuminoids,  the  stronger  acids  uniting  with  these 
alkalis  and  being  excreted  with  the  urine  as  mineral  salts,  so  that  not 
only  the  blood,  but  the  whole  body,  would  become  poorer  in  alkalis 
and  salts. 

"  'Salkowski  and  Lasar  proved  directly  that  the  alkalescence  of  the 
blood  is  diminished  by  the  internal  administration  of  dilute  mineral 
acids.' 

"We  now  return  to  the  question,  is  artificial  butter  a  wholesome 
article  of  food?  It  seems  to  us,  from  the  facts  set  forth  in  the  fore- 
going pages,  that  there  can  be  but  one  answer  to  this  question. 

"We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  every  individual  who  eats  artificial 
butter  will  sicken  and  die  any  more  than  every  man  who  uses  ardent 
spirits,  tobacco,  or  narcotics  to  excess  would  do  so,  but  what  we  do 
mean  to  say  is  that  it,  like  them,  possesses  physiological  properties 
4  unfavorable  to  health '  and  are  very  liable  to  possess  ingredients  very 
dangerous  to  health.  Dyspepsia  is  a  prevalent  disease  in  this  country 
and  is  not  acquired  in  a  day,  for  a  strong  stomach  will  stand  much 
abuse  before  it  will  permanently  rebel. 

"Several  instances  are  on  record  where  pennies  and  other  metallic 
substances  have  been  swallowed  and  digested;  even  jackknives  have 
been  swallowed  and  their  bone  handles  completely  digested,  but  no 
person  would  consider  these  healthy  articles  of  diet. 

"Strong,  vigorous  men  and  those  whose  habits  are  invigorating  to 
the  digestive  powers  might  substitute  a  food  hard  of  digestion  for  an 
easy  one  for  a  long  time  with  apparent  impunity,  but  weaker  men 


150  OLEOMARGARINE. 

and  those  whose  habits  are  sedentary  and  whose  labors  are  mental, 
which  tend  to  debilitate  digestion,  would  soon  be  injured. 

uFats  as  a  whole  are  considered  by  medical  men  to  be  difficult  of 
digestion;  and  to  substitute  those  hard  of  digestion  for  one  that  is 
easy,  and,  too,  for  one  which  we  believe  is  endowed  by  nature  with 
properties  that  not  only  render  it,  per  se,  easily  digested  and  assimi- 
lated, but  which  also  render  important  aid  in  these  processes  to  other 
fats,  must  eventually  produce  sickness.  The  little  genuine  butter 
added  to  these  spurious  articles  helps  as  far  as  it  goes,  but  the  amount 
in  most  of  them  is  very  small  indeed. 

"It  is  true  we  eat  fats  which,  when  raw,  are  more  difficult  of  diges- 
tion than  some  of  the  artificial  butters,  but  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  they  are  eaten  in  conjunction  with  natural  butter,  and  the  cooking 
process  to  which  they  are  subjected  no  doubt  renders  them  much  more 
easily  digested.  As  is  well  known,  'drippings'  are  much  easier 
digested  than  the  fats  from  which  they  come. 

"That  cooking  renders  fats  much  more  easily  emulsionized  by  arti- 
ficial means  is  demonstrated  by  the  following  experiments: 

"We  subjected  a  portion  of  oleomargarine  butter  placed  in  a  frying 
pan  to  the  heat  of  a  cook  stove,  the  same  as  would  be  employed  to  fry 
a  piece  of  meat,  for  about  five  minutes.  (Our  thermometer  registered 
200°  C.,  and  the  heat  went  above  this  somewhat.) 

' '  The  fat  was  then  poured  off,  and  equal  quantities  of  it  and  the 
same  specimen  of  '  oleo .'  uncooked  were  exposed  to  the  action  of  arti- 
ficial digestive  fluid,  the  two  specimens  being  placed  under  exactly  the 
same  conditions. 

'•'At  the  end  of  four  hours  the  microscope  showed  that  the  cooked 
'oleo'  was  decidedly  the  best  emulsion — approaching  in  appearance 
natural  butter  uncooked  under  the  same  circumstances.  It  was 
intended  to  have  artotypes  to  show  this,  but  the  experiments  were  not 
completed  in  time,  and  we  would  add  here  that  we  are  carrying  on 
various  experiments  with  a  view  to  demonstrating  the  differences 
between  natural  and  artificial  butters,  which  we  hope  to  publish  in 
our  next  annual  report. 

uAs  the  fusing  point  of  the  cooked  and  uncooked  'oleos'  remained 
identical,  the  difference  in  the  emulsions  must  have  been  due  to  chem- 
ical changes  produced  by  the  heat,  as  the  separation  of  the  fatty  acids 
and  glycerin,  which  again  gives  us  a  free  fatty  acid. 

"After  pouring  off  the  cooked  fat  there  remained  in  the  frying  pan 
a  considerable  quantity  of  scrap. 

' '  Fothergill  says :  'But  heat  does  liquefy  fat,  and  separates  (we  believe) 
plein  from  stearin  and  margarin.  The  liquid  portions  of  fried  bacon 
is  digested  by  many  who  can  not  digest  the  solid  portion  of  bacon  fat. 
This  is  a  well-known  fact.' 

"Furthermore,  the  great  heat  to  which  fats  are  subjected  in  frying 
is  probably  sufficient  to  set  free  considerable  quantities  of  fatty  acids, 
and  also  to  cause  partial  breaking  up  of  the  whole  fat. 

4 '  The  friends  of  the  bogus  butter  ask  us  in  a  spirit  of  defiance  to 
show  any  cases  of  sickness  produced  by  it.  This  is,  in  fact,  a  demand 
for  a  complete  demonstration,  and  may  be  answered  by  stating  that 
we  have  seen  a  great  many  cases  of  sickness,  and  much  of  it  dyspepsia, 
during  the  period  in  which  the  bogus  butter  has  been  sold,  for  which 
we  have  been  unable  to  assign  a  cause.  This  may  have  been  artificial 
butter,  but  the  deceptive  manner  in  which  it  has  been  handled  has 


OLEOMARGARINE.  151 

prevented  physicians  from  ascertaining  its  effects.  Consequently  we 
must  judge  by  its  qualities. 

"  No  person  would  gainsay  that  these  articles,  if  they  contained  germs 
of  disease  or  such  materials  as  enumerated  above,  were  unwholesome. 
We  have  pointed  out  the  liability  and  great  probability  of  their  con- 
taining them,  and  many  things  have  been  publicly  condemned  on  less 
liability  to  produce  sickness;  for  instance,  the  water  of  Albany  has 
been  used  by  nearly  100,000  people  for  several  years  and  no  serious 
results  can  be  shown,  yet  the  conditions  are  present  which  render  it 
liable  to  produce  disease,  and  this  circumstance  has  agitated  the  public 
mind  to  such  an  extent  that  some  of  the  best  medical  and  other  men 
of  the  city  have  devoted  themselves  to  finding  a  better  supply,  and 
they  have  finally  decided  that  it  is  expedient  to  obtain  it  from  another 
source  than  the  present,  which  will  necessitate  the  expenditure  of 
$450,000. 

"  'Bob  veal'  produces  sickness  in  comparatively  few  cases,  yet  on 
account  of  its  liability  to  produce  disease  its  sale  is  prohibited. 

"Dr.  Fox  says,  in  connection  with  anthracic  diseases,  'that  large 
quantities  of  this  meat  have  been  eaten  with  apparently  no  injurious 
effects,  but  so  many  disastrous  occurrences  have  followed  its  employ- 
ment as  to  warrant  the  medical  officer  of  health  in  condemning  such 
meat."; 

At  5  o'clock  and  15  minutes  p.  m.  the  committee  adjourned  until 
to-morrow,  Friday,  January  4,  1901,  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m. 


COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE  AND  FORESTRY, 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 

Friday,  January  h  1901. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Proctor  (chairman),  Hansbrough,  Foster,  Money, 
and  Heitfeld;  also  Hon.  W.  D.  Hoard,  ex-governor  of  Wisconsin  and 
president  of  the  National  Dairy  Union;  C.  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the 
Nation  Dairy  Union;  Hon.  William  M.  Springer,  of  Springfield,  111., 
representing  the  National  Live  Stock  Association;  Frank  W.  Tilling- 
hast,  representing  the  Vermont  Manufacturing  Company,  of  Provi- 
dence, R.  L;  Charles  E.  Schell,  representing  the  Ohio  Butterine 
Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  Frank  M.  Matthewson,  president  of  the 
Oakdale  Manufacturing  Company,  of  Providence,  K.  I. ;  H.  C.  Adams, 
and  others. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  I  am  informed 
that  there  are  present  two  representatives  of  the  dairy  interests  who 
are  anxious  to  get  away,  and  who  desire  to  make  brief  statements  to 
the  committee  before  leaving. 

Mr.  MATTHEWSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  objec- 
tion on  the  rjart  of  the  oleo  people  to  the  dairymen  going  ahead,  if 
they  are  anxious  to  do  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  two  of  them,  and  they  have  said  to  me 
that  they  will  not  take  more  than  fifteen  minutes  each.  You  may 
proceed,  Mr.  Hamilton. 


152  OLEOMARGARINE. 


STATEMENT  OF  JOHN  HAMILTON,  SECRETARY  OF  AGRICULTURE 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
come  here  as  the  representative  of  the  department  of  agriculture  of 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  as  well  as  a  representative  of  the  daily 
union  of  our  State.  I  want  to  say  at  the  outset  that  Pennsylvania  is  in 
favor  of  this  bill.  The  State  Grange  of  our  State,  at  its  meeting  in 
Lockhaven  recently,  passed  resolutions  favoring  the  Grout  bill.  The 
dairy  union,  at  its  meeting  in  Corry  just  a  few  weeks  ago,  passed  strong 
resolutions  indorsing  the  Grout  bill.  The  people  of  the  State  gener- 
ally endorsed  the  Grout  bill.  The  oleomargarine  question  was  made 
a  campaign  issue  in  Pennsylvania;  and  if  there  can  be  an  expression 
of  opinion  of  the  people,  I  think  that  Pennsylvania's  vote  shows  that 
Pennsylvania,  in  all  of  her  citizenship,  is  very  much  in  favor  of  some 
law  that  will  repress  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  in  our  State. 

The  governor,  in  his  message  which  was  given  to  the  legislature  only 
a  day  or  so  ago,  makes  use  of  the  following  language  in  discussing  the 
oleomargarine  question.  It  took  about  a  column  in  the  newspaper, 
and  closes  with  this  sentence: 

"I  am  much  gratified  at  the  prospects  of  the  early  passage  in  Con- 
gress of  the  Grout  bill.  If  this  bill  becomes  a  law,  it  will  greatly  aid 
in  the  suppression  of  the  oleomargarine  traffic." 

In  my  preliminary  report  to  the  governor  as  secretary  of  agricul- 
ture only  a  week  or  so  ago,  I  say: 

"The  passage  of  the  Grout  bill  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
whereby  a  10-cent  tax  is  imposed  on  all  colored  oleomargarine  manu- 
factured and  the  operations  of  the  interstate-commerce  law  so  sus- 
pended as  to  oleomargarine  trade,  will  greatly  aid  the  State  dairy  and 
fruit  authorities  in  suppressing  the  oleo  traffic.1' 

The  State  Alliance  at  its  meeting  also  passed  resolutions  indorsing 
the  Grout  bill.  The  Republican  platform  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
indorsed  the  suppression  of  the  oleomargarine  traffic  or  its  regulation 
in  our  State.  So  we  have  practically  the  unanimous  indorsement  of 
the  people  of  our  State,  irrespective  of  party,  in  favor  of  the  passage 
of  this  bill. 

Perhaps  I  could  just  as  well  stop  what  1  have  to  say  here  now,  and 
not  take  the  time  of  the  committee,  because  this  is  as  explicit  a  piece 
of  expression  as  any  that  can  be  presented;  and  yet  there  are  one  or 
two  other  matters  that  I  think  the  committee  ought  to  have  their  atten- 
tion called  to,  inasmuch  as,  so  far  as  I  know,  the  points  that  1  desire 
to  discuss  have  not  been  fully  presented. 

Before  taking  up  the  items  that  I  wish  particularly  to  discuss,  I 
would  like  to  refer  to  the  argument  of  Judge  Springer  yesterday 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  rid  of  some  things  that  seem  to  cloud  a 
little  the  bill  itself.  The  Judge  referred  to  the  many  State  laws  and 
the  difficulties  that  were  encountered  by  the  several  States  in  their 
efforts  to  suppress  the  oleomargarine  traffic,  or  at  least  to  regulate  it 
within  their  borders;  and  those  gentlemen  of  the  committee  who  were 
here  yesterday  recall  that  most  of  the  Judge's  presentation  was  taken 
up  in  the  discussion  of  these  laws.  Now,  if  I  had  been  going  to  make 
an  argument  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill,  instead  of  against 
it,  I  think  I  would  have  taken  the  very  same  document.  If  that  argu- 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  153 

tnent  showed  anything  at  all  in  the  presentation  of  these  various  laws 
by  the  many  States  that  have  enacted  them  it  shows  this,  that  there  is 
necessity  for  national  legislation  in  order  to  simplify  this  work  and 
make  it  effective  throughout  the  United  States.  I  think  that  is  the 
only  conclusion  that  can  be  drawn  from  the  argument  as  it  was 
presented. 

There  was  also  the  constitutional  question  raised  as  to  the  power  of 
Congress  in  certain  respects.  Of  course,  so  far  as  the  conflict  with 
the  Constitution  is  concerned  by  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill,  this,  I 
think,  can  be  said:  That  there  is  nothing  given  back  to  the  States  that 
they  did  not  surrender  when  the  interstate-commerce  law  was  enacted; 
and  if  Congress  had  the  right  to  pass  the  interstate-commerce  law,  and 
it  was  ratified,  it  surely  has  the  right  to  rescind  the  law  wholly  or  any 
portion  of  it  that  Congress  may  see  fit.  I  think  that  part  of  the  argu- 
ment does  not  hold  good. 

As  to  the  authority  to  tax,  that  is  unquestioned.  Congress  does  it 
now  in  this  oleomargarine  matter,  and  it  did  it  in  a  number  of  instances, 
and  of  course  that  has  no  force. 

So  far  as  concerns  the  States  taking  advantage  of  this  and  levying 
a  tax,  that  was  one  of  the  points  that  the  judge  seemed  to  be  serious 
about  and  to  which  he  asked  the  committee  to  give  serious  considera- 
tion— as  to  the  States  taking  advantage  of  this  law,  in  case  it  should 
pass,  to  enact  revenue  laws,  the  amount  received  from  the  tax  on  oleo- 
margarine to  go  for  the  general  purposes  of  the  expenses  of  the  State. 
We  all  know  that  such  a  thing  would  be  unconstitutional.  There  has 
been  no  instance  of  it  in  any  of  the  States  so  far,  and  there  is  no  State 
that  I  know  of  that  expects  to  levy  any  tax  or  license  upon  oleomar- 
garine, the  proceeds  of  which  will  be  greater  than  simply  enough  to 
enforce  the  law.  There  was  a  case  in  North  Carolina,  I  believe,  on  a 
somewhat  different  question,  the  taxing  of  fertilizers  in  that  State,  in 
which  a  sum  was  first  used  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  the  law,  and 
then  later  the  surplus  was  used  for  other  State  purposes.  The  Supreme 
Court  declared  that  that  was  unconstitutional  and  was  in  conflict  with 
these  sections  that  the  judge  quoted  yesterday;  but  no  one  contem- 
plates doing  this  thing,  and  if  anyone  did  do  it  it  would  be  clearly 
unconstitutional,  and  that  would  be  the  end  of  it.  No  harm  could 
come  from  it. 

I  may  say,  further,  that  if  they  suppose  that  the  act  is  unconstitu- 
tional, then  it  seems  to  me  that  the  judge's  argument  was  upon  the 
wrong  side.  If  I  had  been  holding  that  position  and  believed  that  it 
was  unconstitutional,  I  certainly  would  not  stand  here  and  advocate  its 
passage;  and  I  can  not  quite  see  how  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side, 
believing  it  to  be  unconstitutional,  could  stand  and  resist  its  passage, 
because  the  passage  of  the  act — knowing  that  it  would  be  unconstitu- 
tional— would  make  it  inoperative,  and  they  would  have  secured  the 
exact  thing  that  they  seem  to  desire.  So  I  think  the  judge's  argument 
went  a  little  too  far. 

There  is  another  thing  that  was  referred  to,  if  you  will  permit  me, 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  this  was  the  most  forcible  presentation  of  our 
side  of  the  question  and  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  this  bill  that  has 
yet  been  presented.  That  is  this  fact,  that  32  States  of  this  great 
Union  have  passed  laws  regulating  this  traffic  within  their  borders, 
and  to  say  that  these  States  do  not  understand  what  they  are  about; 
that  the  legislatures  of  all  these  States,  acting  independently  and  rep- 


154  OLEOMAKGAEINE. 

resenting  their  citizens  and  representing  about  two-thirds  to  three- 
fourths  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  do  not  understand  what 
they  want,  is  so  ridiculous  that  I  can  scarcely  believe  that  anybody  can 
present  such  an  argument.  The  voice  of  the  people  in  this  country,  if 
it  is  properly  expressed,  is  the  ruling  power;  and  there  is  no  stronger 
argument  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  this  bill  than  that  very  fact,  that 
32  States  have  for  years  been  passing  laws  and  amending  laws  with  a 
view  to  regulating  this  traffic  within  their  borders. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Excuse  me  a  moment.  Will  you  explain  why  it  is, 
then,  that  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  where  they  have  a  law  prohibiting 
the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine,  18,000,000  pounds  were  sold  within 
that  State  and  38,000,000  pounds  were  manufactured? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  I  will  answer  you,  if  you  will  excuse  me  just  a 
moment. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Does  it  not  show  that  the  people  are  not  in  favor  of 
these  laws  and  will  not  enforce  them  ? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  My  time  is  very  limited,  and  if  the  gentleman  will 
make  a  note  of  things  as  I  go  along,  when  I  get  through  I  will  be  very 
glad  to  answer  any  questions  that  I  may  be  able  to  answer. 

I  will  say  in  reply  to  the  Judge  that  in  some  of  these  States  the  laws 
are  defective.  They  are  not  sufficiently  rigorous,  and  the  legislatures 
have  not  been  able  in  those  particular  States  to  pass  laws  that  will 
restrict.  The  effort  is  to  do  it,  but  in  many  cases  it  has  been  so  resisted 
by  the  interests  in  the  State  that  they  have  not  yet  succeeded  in  pass- 
ing laws  that  the  people  desire.  I  reiterate  that  the  effort  of  32  States 
of  this  Union,  representing,  I  believe  you  said,  sir,  about  60,000,000 
people — 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Sixty  millions  of  people;  yes. 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  Sixty  millions  of  people  out  of  76,000,000 — that 
the  representatives  of  those  60,000,000  people  do  not  know  what  they 
are  about  is  inconceivable. 

Now,  with  regard  to  this  bill.  It  is  constitutional.  That  is  clear  to 
the  committee.  I  will  not  argue  that  to  the  committee,  because  they 
know  it  already  just  as  well  as  it  is  possible  to  know  it.  The  bill  is 
constitutional,  and  the  discussion  of  the  bill  should  be  upon  its  merits. 
Is  it  a  wise  measure  ?  Is  it  a  proper  measure  ?  That  is  the  point. 

Now,  the  real  argument  that  is  presented — and  about  the  only  argu- 
ment that  is  presented  on  the  other  side — so  far  as  I  know,  is  that  the 
article  is  a  healthful  and  proper  article  of  food,  and  that  it  is  equally 
nutritive  and  harmless  with  butter,  and  that  therefore  it  should  be 
permitted  to  go  into  the  market  and  be  sold  colored  as  butter.  I 
believe  that  is  the  argument  that  is  presented,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to 
understand,  that  they  claim  that  it  is  equally  nutritious  with  butter, 
that  it  is  a  substance  that  the  public  desires,  and  that  it  is  equally 
digestible  with  butter,  and  that  therefore  it  is  a  wrong  to  undertake 
to  do  anything  that  would  limit  its  sale  in  this  country. 

That  is  at  least  one  proposition.  Now,  in  reply  to  that  they  give 
the  testimony  of  some  of  the  most  eminent  chemists  in  the  country. 
The  testimony  is  guarded,  it  is  true,  but  they  put  it  in  a  somewhat 
unequivocal  form.  What  does  the  analysis  of  oleomargarine  and  but- 
ter show  as  compared  with  each  other  ?  The  first  thing  that  can  be 
said  is  that  they  are  not  identical.  The  analysis  shows  that  while  the 
amount  of  fat  in  the  two  is  practically  the  same,  yet  the  composition 
of  these  fats  that  go  to  make  up  what  is  called  fat  in  a  chemical  sense 


OLEOMARGARINE.  155 

is  entirely  different  in  oleomargarine  and  in  butter;  that  the  amount, 
for  instance,  of  butyric  acid  in  the  one  is  very  much  greater  than  in 
the  other.  The  amount  of  butyric  acid  that  they  get  is  the  amount 
that  is  secured  from  the  milk  that  is  churned  with  their  product.  The 
amount  that  is  naturally  in  butter  is  a  larger  percentage,  and  just  what 
efi'ect  this  condiment  has — and  doubtless  it  acts  as  a  condiment  in  some 
way;  at  all  events,  it  gives  a  special  flavor  and  aids  in  the  digestion,  it 
is  believed — just  what  effect  this  condiment  has  we  do  not  know,  and 
physiologists  do  not  know.  It  think  it  is  agreed  that  it  bears  an 
important  relation  to  the  digestibility  of  this  substance  and  of  other 
substances  in  the  human  stomach,  but  just  what  its  operation  is  is  not 
known.  The  other  thing  which  the  chemical  analysis  discloses  is  that 
the  amount  of  stearin  in  oleomargarine  is  much  greater.  Dr.  Wiley 
says  it  is  about  five  times  as  much  as  is  found  in  butter. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  The  amount  of  what? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  Stearine. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Is  that  added? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  Some  of  it  is  added  and  some  is  found  in  the  oils 
out  of  which  oleomargarine  is  produced.  So  that  in  those  respects — 
and  they  are  very*  important  respects — these  substances  differ  from 
each  other  in  a  chemical  view. 

Now,  so  far  as  heat  units  are  concerned — that  is,  the  amount  of 
energy -producing  power  that  the  two  substances  contain — that,  our 
physiologists  say,  is  about  equal,  so  far  as  they  can  determine. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Does  any  user  of  butter  consume  enough  to  give 
any  particular  energy  to  the  body  ? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  The  energy  is  transmitted  into  heat  and  is  measured 
in  heat  units.  One  unit,  or  calory,  as  they  call  it,  which  is  a  unit  of 
energy,  is  regarded  by  these  physiologists  as  equivalent  to  heat  suffi- 
cient to  raise  water  4°  F. ;  so  for  every  unit  of  energy  there  is  heat 
enough  to  do  that  thing. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  How  much  water? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  A  pound  of  water — 4°  F. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  How  much  butter  does  it  take  to  make  a  unit? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  The  exact  amount  is  given  here.  One  gram  of  the 
ordinary  butter  fat  is  equal  to  about  nine  calories,  which  would  be 
about  36°  of  heat;  a  little  more  than  that.  It  would  be  pretty  nearly 
40°  of  heat.  So  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  energy -producing  power 
in  butter.  But  that  was  only  incidental.  The  thing  I  started  to  say, 
gentlemen  of  the  committee,  was  this,  that  in  that  respect  these  two 
substances  seem  to  be  on  about  the  same  basis.  The  analysis  shows 
that  they  contain  about  the  same  amount  of  butter  fat,  and  so  their 
energy-producing  power  is  equal. 

The  fallacy  of  their  argument  comes  in  right  there.  They  say  that 
because  these  substances  are  equal,  therefore  they  are  equally  nutri- 
tious and  beneficial.  That  does  not  follow  at  all,  and  it  is  to  that  point 
that  1  want  to  call  your  attention  just  for  a  little  to  show  that  that  is  a 
mistake  or  at  least  that  the  unqualified  assertion  that  these  two  are 
equally  noninjurious  to  health  is  simply  an  assumption,  and  is  not 
based  upon  any  reliable  ascertained  data  that  has  been  continued  for 
any  length  of  time. 

We  have  very  familiar  examples  of  how  things  that  are  identical 
produce  entirely  different  effects.  1  know  a  lady  who  for  the  last 
seven  or  eight  years  could  not  eat  fresh  bread  or  bread  that  had  been 


156  OLEOMAKGARINE. 

baked  for  a  day  or  so.  It  produces  violent  illness,  and  it  is  simply  out 
of  the  question,  although  it  has  been  tried  numerous  times.  She  can 
not  do  that,  but  she  can  eat  that  very  same  bread  taken  and  sliced  into 
thin  slices  and  put  in  an  oven  at  a  low  temperature  of  heat;  that  is,  a 
temperature  too  low  to  permit  the  change  of  starchy  dextrine,  which, 
of  course  would  promote  digestion,  but  a  simple  drying  out.  That 
she  can  eat  in  any  quantity  to  satisfy  her  hunger  and  with  perfect 
comfort. 

A  chemist  will  say  that  there  is  no  difference  between  those  two 
substances,  in  an  analytical  point  of  view,  except  the  loss  of  water. 
There  has  been  no  chemical  change,  because  the  amount  of  heat  sup- 
plied was  not  sufficient  to  bring  about  a  chemical  change.  He  will 
say  that  they  are  identical,  and  yet  the  effects  that  are  produced  upon 
the  same  system  are  altogether  opposite.  To  assert  that  substances 
that  are  analyzed  and  shown  in  an  analytical  sense  to  be  of  similar 
composition  in  fact,  but  which  vary  in  other  minor  matters  that  to  us 
seem  to  be  infinitesimal  almost,  yet  which  have  a  very  important  effect 
upon  the  physiological  organs  and  upon  digestion,  is  to  assert,  as  I 
say,  something  that  is  not  based  upon  reliable  information.  So  that 
it  does  not  follow  that  because  the  things  have  the  same  amount  of 
heat-producing  power  and  nourishment-producing  power  therefore 
they  are  equally  beneficial  to  health. 

I  want  to  call  attention  to  Professor  Atwater's  statement  with  regard 
to  that,  if  you  will  permit  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  These  hearings,  I  may  say,  are  sandwiched  in  ahead 
of  the  oleo  people,  and  it  was  promised  that  they  should  be  very  short, 
about  fifteen  minutes  each.  You  have  occupied  nearly  twenty-five  min- 
utes, but  you  have  been  interrupted  somewhat  and  I  do  not  want  to 
cut  you  off. 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  I  will  not  refer,  then,  to  these  matters.  I  did  want 
to  refer  to  them  in  substantiation  of  the  position  I  have  taken. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  1  suggest  that  you  put  the  statements  you 
desire  in  the  record. 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  I  will  do  so.  I  desire  to  refer  to  the  article  on  the 
u  Digestibility  of  food,"  a  statement  by  Prof.  R.  H.  Chittenden,  in 
Bulletin  No.  21  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  page  72,  and  also 
to  a  statement  by  Dr.  W.  O.  Atwater  in  the  same  bulletin,  on  page  53. 

The  statement  of  Professor  Chittenden  is  as  follows: 

"As  to  the  reasons  for  the  differences  of  digestibility  but  compara- 
tively little  is  definitely  known.  There  are,  however,  certain  a  priori 
considerations  which  help  toward  explaining  them.  For  example,  the 
digestibility  of  the  proteids  is  discussed  by  Prof.  R.  H.  Chittenden  as 
follows: 

"  'If  of  two  foods  possessing  a  like  composition  one  be  more  easily 
digestible,  that  one,  though  containing  no  more  available  nutriment 
than  the  other,  is  in  virtue  of  its  easier  digestibility  more  valuable  as  a 
food  stuff,  and  in  one  sense  more  nutritious,  as  well  as  more  econom- 
ical for  the  system."' 

Dr.  Atwaters's  statement  is  as  follows: 

"The  value  of  food  for  nutriment  depends  not  only  upon  how  much 
of  nutrients  it  contains,  but  also  upon  how  much  of  these  the  body  can 
digest  and  use  for  its  support. 

"The  question  of  the  digestibility  of  foods  is  very  complex,  and  it  is 
noticeable  that  the  men  who  know  most  about  the  subject  are  generally 


OLEOMARGARINE.  157 

the  least  ready  to  make  definite  and  sweeping  statements  concerning  it. 
One  of  the  most  celebrated  physiologists  of  the  time,  an  investigator 
in  whose  laboratory  this  particular  subject  has  been  studied  more  than 
in  almost  any  other,  says  in  his  lectures  that,  aside  from  the  chemistry 
of  the  process  and  the  quantities  of  nutrients  that  may  be  digested  from 
different  foods,  he  is  unable  to  affirm  much  about  it.  The  contrast 
between  this  and  the  positiveness  with  which  many  persons  discourse 
about  the  digestibility  of  this  or  that  kind  of  food  is  marked  and  has 
its  moral. 

"  One  source  of  confusion  is  the  fact  that  what  people  commonly 
call  the  digestibility  of  food  includes  several  very  different  things, 
some  of  which,  as  the  ease  with  which  a  given  food  material  is  digested, 
the  time  required  for  the  process,  the  influence  of  different  substances 
and  conditions  upon  digestion,  and  the  effects  upon  comfort  and  health, 
are  so  dependent  upon  individual  peculiarities  of  different  persons 
and  so  difficult  of  measurement  as  to  make  the  laying  down  of  hard 
and  fast  rules  impossible.  Why  it  is,  for  instance,  that  some  persons 
are  made  seriously  ill  by  so  wholesome  a  material  as  milk,  and  others 
find  that  certain  kinds  of  meat,  of  vegetables,  or  of  sweetmeats  '  do 
not  agree  with  them,'  neither  chemists  nor  physiologists  can  exactly 
tell." 

Mr.  ADAMS.  May  I  ask  you  a  question,  Mr.  Hamilton,  before  you 
close  ? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  I  am  not  closing  yet.  I  want  to  make  another 
statement,  if  the  gentlemen  will  permit  me.  I  feel,  gentlemen,  that 
this  is  an  exceedingly  important  question. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Go  on,  but  be  as  brief  as  you  can. 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  With  regard,  therefore,  to  the  question  whether 
butter  and  oleomargarine  are  equally  beneficial  to  health  or  noninju- 
rious  to  health,  the  fact  is  that  we  do  not  know  about  it;  and  when 
they  say  unequivocally  that  it  is  not  injurious  to  health,  or  that  it  is 
equally  beneficial  with  butter,  they  are  talking  in  a  rather  loose  way 
and  are  not  supported  by  the  best  authorities  in  the  country. 

Now,  with  regard  to  another  matter,  the  question  of  public  policy.  Is 
it  a  proper  measure  ?  If  you  will  permit  me  to  use  for  my  illustration 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  with  which  I  am  familiar,  and  the  condi- 
tions there,  I  think  it  will  illustrate  what  I  desire  to  present,  and  the 
application  of  it  is  wide  enough  to  extend  to,  I  think,  almost  all  of  the 
States  of  the  Union.  I  have  here  a  little  statement  that  I  made  in  my 
report.  It  is  a  discussion  of  this  question,  and  I  would  like  to  read  it: 

"Careful  examination  should  be  made  into  the  effect  which  this  will 
have  upon  the  dairy  industry  of  the  Commonwealth,  which  has  now 
become  one  of  the  leading  and  most  profitable  branches  of  our  agri- 
culture. If,  upon  examination,  it  is  found  that  oleomargarine  will  to 
any  considerable  degree  drive  out  the  dairy  interests  from  the  markets 
of  the  Commonwealth,  it  would  seem  to  be  only  wise  public  policy  to 
first  make  sure  that  the  industry  that  is  to  replace  this  branch  of  our 
agriculture  shall  do  more  for  the  Commonwealth  in  the  way  of  sub- 
stantial and  permanent  support  than  the  important  occupation  that  it 
proposes  to  supplant. 

"The  admitting  of  oleomargarine  in  competition  with  the  dairy  prod- 
ucts of  the  Slate  endangers  a  great  industry  that  is  now  a  part  of  our 
system  of  agriculture  more  widely  distributed  than  any  other.  We 
have  now  about  1,100,000  cows  in  Pennsylvania.  Their  product  is 


158  OLEOMARGARINE. 

about  90,000,000  to  100,000,000  pounds  of  butter  per  year,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  census  of  1890  the  milk  product  was  437.525,349  gallons. 
These  cows  are  distributed  among  211,412  farmers'  families,  consisting 
of  over  1,000,000  persons,  or  about  one-fifth  of  our  entire  population. 
The  income  of  the  farming  people  of  Pennsylvania  last  year  from 
butter  alone  amounted  to  between  eighteen  and  twenty  millions  of 
dollars;  and  the  milk  product,  at  8  cents  per  gallon,  amounted  to 
$35,000,000  more.  This  vast  sum  is  a  new  product  each  year,  adding 
this  much  to  the  actual  wealth  of  the  State,  and  is  distributed  all  through 
the  Commonwealth,  going  to  the  support  of  over  1,000,000  people, 
enabling  them  to  maintain  themselves  in  comparative  comfort.  The 
loss  of  such  a  sum  as  this  by  the  agricultural  people  of  the  State  would 
be  a  calamity,  particularly  because  much  of  the  material  that  is  used 
in  the  feeding  of  these  dairy  cows  would,  if  the  industry  were  destroyed, 
be  left  on  the  farmers'  hands  valueless. 

c '  If  the  product  of  these  animals  were  seriously  threatened  there 
would  also  be  an  immediate  depreciation  in  the  value  of  milch  cows 
throughout  the  Commonwealth  amounting  to  many  millions  of  dollars, 
and  would  involve  the  partial  or  total  loss  of  the  stabling,  creamery 
buildings,  and  machinery  that  are  now  in  use  in  the  prosecution  of 
this  industry.  A  large  number  of  our  people,  also,  would  be  thrown 
out  of  employment.  Instead  of  men,  women,  and  children  on  the 
farms  having  at  all  seasons  occupations  suited  to  their  strength  and 
attainments,  there  would  be,  in  the  cutting  off  of  this  line  of  work, 
comparative  idleness  during  a  considerable  portion  of  the  year. 

"The  people  of  this  State  require  about  200,000,000  pounds  of  but- 
ter annually  to  supply  their  needs.  The  business,  therefore,  is  one 
that  has  room  for  growth,  and  the  doubling  of  the  products  of  milk 
and  butter  will  double  the  income  of  the  farming  people — an  increase 
of  from  fifty  to  sixty  millions  of  dollars  annually. 

"If  oleomargarine  were  wholly  substituted  for  butter  in  this  State 
it  would  mean  a  direct  loss  on  that  article  alone  of  from  $ 30,000,000 
to  $40,000,000  per  year,  and  the  profits  of  the  new  industry,  instead 
of  being  distributed  among  1,000,000  of  people,  would  be  retained  in 
the  hands  of  a  very  few,  rendering  them  inordinately  rich  at  the 
expense  of  those  whose  industry  they  had  destroyed. 

"It  is  true  that  in  no  event  can  oleomargarine  entirely  supplant 
butter  production,  but  enough  is  known  to  make  sure  that  this  prod- 
uct, which  can  be  made  for  about  7  cents  per  pound,  will  seriously 
injure  the  butter  industry  and  effectually  prevent  its  development. 
It  would  be  extremely  bad  business  policy  to  drive  out  a  source  of 
revenue  and  means  of  livelihood  as  important  as  the  dairy  industry 
for  the  sake  of  benefiting  a  few  individuals  belonging  to  the  oleomar- 
garine trade;  to  take  from  1,000,000  agricultural  people  the  profits  of 
their  chief  industry  and  give  these  profits  to  a  select  syndicate  of  cap- 
italists, that  they  may  become  enormously  rich. 

"If  this  new  industry  required  for  its  prosecution  the  employment 
of  2,000,000  people  instead  of  the  1,000,000  at  present  needed  by  the 
dairies,  one  could  see  how  it  might  be  to  the  advantage  of  the  State  to 
substitute  the  new  industry  for  the  old,  because  of  the  increased  num- 
ber of  laborers  that  it  would  employ;  but  when  it  proposes  to  do  away 
with  1,000,000  laborers  and  su  bstitute  therefor  a  factory  system  employ- 
ing only  a  few  workmen,  the  danger  that  will  ensue  becomes  apparent 
to  every  thoughtful  citizen.  We  need  employment  for  more  labor 


OLEOMARGARINE.  159 

instead  of  turning  men  idle  who  are  now  employed.  We  need  addi- 
tional markets  for  the  rough  products  of  our  farms  instead  of  closing 
up  the  ones  we  now  have.  Under  modern  conditions  it  is  necessary  to 
change  farm  articles  of  bulk  into  a  more  valuable  and  compact  shape 
in  order  to  ship  them  to  distant  markets.  The  butter  industry  does 
this,  and  has  the  additional  advantage  over  every  other  product  in  that 
it  at  the  same  time  removes  almost  no  fertility  from  the  farm." 

It  is  claimed  that  it  is  unjust  to  exclude  from  the  Commonwealth  an 
article  of  food  that  is  not  injurious  to  the  public  health,  taking  for 
granted  that  oleomargarine,  as  now  manufactured,  is  not  unwholesome 
as  an  article  of  food. 

The  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter  and  in  imitation  of  butter  is  a 
fraud,  and  it  is  also  a  menace  to  a  great  industry  which  comprises  a 
large  portion  of  our  agricultural  wealth. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Wads  worth  is  here  from  the  House  and  desires 
to  address  the  committee. 


STATEMENT  OF  HON.  J.  W.  WADSWORTH,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  saw  a  statement  in  the  paper 
yesterday  which  puts  the  report  of  the  minority  of  the  Committee  on 
Agriculture  of  the  House  in  a  rather  dubious  odor.  That  is,  the  con- 
tradiction of  Mr.  Adams  that  he  ever  stated  to  that  committee  that 
there  was  no  need  of  beating  around  the  bush;  that  the  object  of  this 
second  section  of  the  bill  was  to  drive  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers 
out  of  business.  Mr.  Adams  is  right  in  the  statement  that  there  was 
no  stenographer  present  at  that  time,  owing  to  an  oversight.  The 
remark  was  taken  down,  however,  by  a  member  of  that  committee  at 
the  time,  because  its  very  boldness  attracted  the  attention  of  the  whole 
committee  to  it. 

Another  contradiction  made  yesterday  was  by  Mr.  Knight,  secretary 
of  the  National  Dairymen's  Union,  that  he  never  wrote  that  letter  to 
the  Virginia  farmers.  That  letter,  or  a  copy  of  it,  is  in  the  hands  of 
a  member  of  the  committee,  who  has  not  returned  from  the  West  as 
yet.  If  it  is  considered  of  enough  importance,  the  copy  of  the  letter 
or  the  original  will  be  produced.  I  say  this  simply  to  place  the  minority 
report  of  the  committee  in  the  proper  light. 

Another  matter,  which  is  personal  to  myself — and  I  only  call  atten- 
tion to  it  because  this  man  Knight  has  used  it  simply  for  purposes  of 
intimidation.  He  says  that  my  majority  in  my  district  was  cut  down 
over  2,000.  That  is  a  falsehood.  My  majority  is  the  largest  I  have 
ever  had  there,  except  in  1896. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  believe,  Mr.  Wadsworth,  that  was  a  mistake. 
He  admitted  that  your  majority  was  larger;  he  simply  stated  that  you 
ran  behind  the  ticket. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  I  did  not;  that  is  false  also.  I  only  desired  to 
call  attention  to  that  because  I  believe  it  was  stated  for  a  political 
purpose. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  a  personal  matter,  and  I  hope 
Mr.  Wadsworth  will  remain  while  I  make  another  statement  with  ref- 
erence to  the  statement  which  I  made  before  the  Committee  on  Agri- 
culture. I  did  not  make  the  statement  which  was  reported  in  the  report 
of  the  minority  of  that  committee.  1  simply  said  there  was  no  use  in 


160  OLEOMARGARINE. 

beating  about  the  bush;  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  friends  of  the 
Grout  bill  to  enact  that  measure  into  law  and  stop  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter — jieither 
more  nor  less.  It  may  be  that  the  gentlemen  understood  that  I  made 
a  stronger  statement  than  I  did  make;  but  it  is  an  unfair  thing  to  the 
representatives  of  the  dairy  interests  of  this  country  to  put  them  in  the 
false  position  of  making  an  idiotic  attack  upon  oleomargarine  pure  and 
simple  under  its  own  color  and  in  its  own  form;  and  at  no  place  will  I 
permit  any  gentleman  to  quote  me  as  having  said  something  which  I  did 
not  say  and  which  is  an  injustice  to  myself  and  to  the  interests  which 
I  represent. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  report  was  published  last  May. 
This  is  the  first  time  it  has  been  contradicted.  We  will  drop  it  now, 
so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  except  that  I  will  simply  say  to  Mr.  Adams 
that  it  is  a  question  of  memory  between  the  committee  and  him  as  to 
the  words  he  used. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Permit  me  to  say  further  that,  at  the  request  of  a  mem- 
ber of  Congress,  when  my  attention  was  first  called  to  the  statement  of 
the  minority,  I  submitted  a  written  statement  of  the  facts,  which  he 
incorporated  in  his  speech,  and  that  was  published  in  the  Congressional 
Record. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  committee  is  not  trying  the  proceedings  of  the 
other  House. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  I  wished  it  understood  that  I  appear  here  simply 
to  correct  that  matter,  on  the  part  of  the  minority  of  the  committee. 

STATEMENT  OF  JOHN  HAMILTON  EESTJMED. 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  finish  in  a  moment,  if  you  can 
indulge  me.  This  article,  oleomargarine,  is  a  fraud  on  the  public.  I 
think  that  statement  is  corroborated  by  every  dairy  and  food  commis- 
sioner that  has  to  do  with  it  in  every  State  where  laws  exist  regulating 
its  sale.  We  have  had  a  great  deal  of  experience  in  Pennsylvania  with 
this  article,  and  a  large  amount  of  it  is  not  branded,  although  it  may 
be  sold  for  butter.  We  have  examined  more  than  a  thousand  samples 
of  it  this  year,  and  a  large  percentage  of  it  is  not  branded  so  as  to 
distinguish  it  from  butter,  and  is  sold  as  butter. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  Grout  bill.  My  view,  and  the  views  of 
those  whom  I  represent,  is  that  the  Grout  bill  will  overcome  our  diffi- 
culties; that  it  will  enable  the  dairy  and  food  commissioners  of  the 
several  States  to  enforce  their  laws  better  than  they  do  at  present; 
that  this  Grout  bill  is  not  a  prohibitive  law;  that  it  is  simply  one  that 
protects  the  dairy  industry.  It  costs  the  farmers  from  16  to  20  cents 
to  make  butter,  according  to  the  season  of  the  year,  and  if  this  article 
can  be  sold  down  as  low  as  15  cents  or  12  cents  it  makes  it  impossible 
for  the  dairymen  of  the  State  to  compete  with  such  an  article.  The 
purpose  of  the  Grout  bill,  as  I  understand  it,  is  simply  to  raise  the 
price  of  oleomargarine  up  somewhere  near  the  cost  of  producing  butter, 
so  that  they  may  start  in  the  market  at  equal  prices.  Then  it  is  sold 
colored,  and  the  butter  is  sold  colored,  and  they  will  have  a  fair  chance 
in  the  market,  started  equal;  but  if  the  one  starts  down  at  10  cents  or 
9  cents  and  the  other  can  not  start  until  it  reaches  16  or  18  cents,  it 
does  not  take  much  of  a  prophet  to  know  what  the  conclusion  of  the 
whole  matter  will  be  in  the  very  near  future — the  destruction  of  the 


OLEOMARGABINE.  161 

dairy  industry  of  this  country.  That  can  not  be  avoided.  The  price 
at  which  it  must  be  sold  is  not  excessive.  It  is  not  an  excessive  price. 
It  simply  brings  it  up  to  the  necessary  cost  of  good  butter,  so  that  the 
bill  can  not  be  attacked  on  the  ground  that  it  is  an  excessive  tax  and 
that  it  puts  them  at  a  disadvantage  with  the  farming  interests  of  the 
State.  They  start  upon  the  same  footing,  and  they  are  entitled  then 
to  the  same  privilege. 

I  am  very  much  obliged  to  the  committee  for  their  indulgence,  and 
I  am  sorry  to  have  transgressed  upon  the  time  of  the  gentleman  who 
is  to  follow  me. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  the  gentleman  answer  one  question  ? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  How  much  oleomargarine  do  you  estimate  was 
sold  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  last  year? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  What  percentage  do  you  think  is  sold  as  and  for 
butter? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  I  should  say  50  per  cent,  at  least. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  If  you  do  not  know  about  one  thing  how  do  you 
know  about  the  other? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  I  am  talking  about  the  percentage  we  collect. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  would  like  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  Mr.  Blackburn, 
who  will  now  address  the  committee,  only  asks  for  ten  minutes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well. 


STATEMENT  OF  JOSEPH  H.  BLACKBURN,  DAIRY  AND  FOOD 
COMMISSIONER  OF  OHIO. 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  endeavor  to  set  an  example 
to  those  who  follow  me  by  finishing  my  remarks  within  the  allotted 
time.  I  have  heard  this  question  discussed  so  much  technically,  scien- 
tifically, therapeutically,  and  physiologically  that  I  do  not  intend  to 
give  any  consideration  whatever  to  those  phases  of  this  question.  I 
have  been  asked  perhaps  a  dozen  times  since  I  have  been  in  Washing- 
ton, "  Why  don't  you  enforce  your  State  laws?"  I  have  been  asked 
that  perhaps  a  dozen  times  in  my  own  State.  We  have  a  State  law 
against  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  artificially  colored  oleomargarine. 
It  is  not  limited  to  the  coloring  or  semblance  of  butter,  but  any  color- 
ing matter  whatever  is  forbidden. 

I  desire  to  say  that  I  have  been  dairy  and  food  commissioner  of  the 
State  of  Ohio  for  about  four  years.  In  that  time  I  have  spent  nearly 
$200,000  of  the  State  money,  and  of  that  amount  I  presume  60  per  cent 
has  been  spent  in  oleomargarine  prosecutions.  The  difficulties  to  con- 
tend with  in  the  State  of  Ohio  may  be  very  briefly  stated.  The  prin- 
cipal sales  of  oleomargarine,  as  everybody  knows,  are  in  the  large  cities, 
where  butter,  in  the  winter  time  especially,  is  scarce  and  hard  to  get. 
It  has  been  sold  so  long  in  the  larger  cities  of  Ohio — and  I  refer  to  the 
cities  of  Cleveland,  Columbus,  Cincinnati,  Dayton,  and  Toledo  as  the 
larger  cities  in  the  State — that  there  is  a  certain  clientele  built  up,  many 
of  whom  want  oleomargarine,  many  of  whom  are  deceived  into  believing 
that  they  are  buying  and  using  butter ;  but  when  a  prosecution  is  brought 
there  is  so  much  sentiment  there,  or  manufactured  for  the  occasion 
through  the  manipulation  of  the  public  press  and  the  carefully  worded 
S.  Kep.  2043 11 


162  OLEOMARGARINE. 

reading  notices  and  advertisements  and  through  the  personal  solicita- 
tion and  interference  with  the  jurymen  or  those  who  are  to  be  sum- 
moned as  jurymen  to  try  a  case,  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  secure 
convictions  in  these  large  towns,  or  many  of  them. 

I  will  refer  to  one  case  that  happened  a  short  time  ago  in  a  smaller 
town  in  Ohio,  the  city  of  Portsmouth.  The  case  was  tried  by  a  jury, 
as  all  our  cases  have  been  until  this  week.  The  law  makes  the  sale  of 
colored  oleomargarine  a  misdemeanor,  and  we  have  always  gone  on  the 
theory  that  these  cases  must  be  tried  by  a  jury.  We  are  working  now 
under  a  new  plan,  and  trying  to  do  away  with  the  jury  because  it 
increases  the  difficulties  of  securing  conviction.  In  the  case  of  a  jury 
trial  the  State  must  have  twelve  men  who  are  convinced  that  there  has 
been  a  violation  of  the  law,  while  the  defendant  only  needs  one  to  hang 
the  jury;  and,  under  a  peculiarity  of  our  jury  law,  a  member  of  the 
jury  is  not  paid  unless  the  defendant  is  either  acquitted  or  convicted, 
so  that  hung  juries  do  not  get  their  fees  until  the  case  is  finally  decided. 
In  this  case  that  I  have  reference  to,  in  Portsmouth,  the  case  was  not 
tried  very  hard — sometimes  our  cases  are  fought  very  bitterly  and  a 
great  deal  of  feeling  develops — but  the  very  next  day  after  that  jury 
hung,  or  disagreed,  two  members  of  the  jury  went  to  work  for  grocers 
in  that  town.  We  have  no  proof  that  this  was  prearranged,  but  we 
hope  to  get  some  proof  on  that  subject  in  the  near  future,  and  ever}r- 
thing  indicates,  and  everybody  who  has  paid  any  attention  to  the  sub- 
ject believes,  that  that  jury  was  corrupted.  That  is  simply  one 
instance.  I  could  relate  dozens  of  such  cases. 

I  will  state  that  it  has  become  a  common  practice  in  the  larger  cities — 
and  I  refer  to  Cincinnati  and  Dayton,  where  instances  have  lately 
occurred  of  the  jury  having  acquitted  the  defendant  for  having  sold  col- 
ored oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine;  not  as  butter,  but  colored  oleo- 
margarine— for  the  jury  to  be  taken  out  and  banqueted  by  the  defendant 
and  the  defendant's  attorneys.  1  will  state  further  that  I  have  been 
informed  by  one  of  the  most  prominent  representatives  of  grocery  inter- 
ests in  the  State  of  Ohio  that  they  are  encouraged  to  sell  oleomargarine 
for  butter.  I  asked  him  why  and  by  whom.  He  said,  "Well,  there  is 
not  much  in  the  grocery  business  any  more,  and  if  we  sell  oleomarga- 
rine as  oleomargarine  we  make  about  a  cent  or  2  cents  a  pound  on  it. 
If  we  sell  it  for  butter,  we  make  8  or  10  cents  a  pound  or  more."  I 
asked  him  who  encouraged  this.  He  said,  "Well,  when  the  manu- 
facturers' agents  come  around  and  give  us  a  guarantee  to  protect  us 
against  all  prosecution  it  is  a  pretty  big  temptation  for  a  fellow  to 
take  chances."  I  said,  "Are  they  in  the  habit  of  doing  this?"  He 
said,  ' ' They  are."  I  understand  it  is  a  very  common  practice  for  manu- 
facturers, as  an  inducement  to  handle  oleomargarine  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  Ohio,  not  only  to  pay  part  or  all  of  their  license  fees,  their 
national  license,  but  also  to  give  them  assurances  and  guarantees  that 
under  no  circumstances  will  they  permit  them  to  be  involved  in  any 
trouble  on  account  of  the  activity  of  the  dairy  and  food  department; 
that  they  guarantee  them  against  any  loss  whatever;  that  they  will 
protect  them  and  do  protect  them. 

Perhaps  the  largest  oleo  manufacturing  concern  in  our  State,  the 
Capital  City  Dairy  Company,  of  Columbus,  provides  a  lawyer  nearly 
all  of  whose  time  is  taken  up  in  defending  retail  dealers.  They  not 
only  furnish  a  lawyer,  but  they  furnish  a  stenographer  to  make  and 


OLEOMARGAKINE.  163 

keep  a  record  of  every  case.  They  furnish  two  or  three  agents,  who 
usually  appear  on  the  ground  when  a  trial  is  about  to  be  had,  a  day 
or  two  in  advance,  and  secure  all  the  information  they  can.  I  presume 
they  usually  have  a  list  or  copy  of  the  venire — the  jurymen  whom  we 
propose  to  call  upon.  And  in  one  instance  recently,  that  is  the  Ports- 
mouth case,  of  which  I  spoke  a  while  ago,  which  was  tried  the  second 
time  last  week,  the  attorney  for  this  Capital  City  Dairy  Company  in 
Portsmouth  pulled  a  list  out  of  his  pocket  that  had  the  venire  on  it — 
all  the  members  whom  we  expected  to  serve  on  that  jury — and  he  had 
a  chart  made  showing  each  gentleman's  politics,  his  religion,  his  pre- 
dilections on  these  various  questions,  and  especially  with  reference  to 
the  pure-food  law,  and  so  on — six  or  seven  very  important  points. 
Now,  that  case  was  not  half  tried  by  the  defendants,  not  half;  yet  the 
jury  stood  nine  to  three  for  acquittal. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Have  they  ever  had  any  convictions  in  the  State  of 
Ohio? 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  Yes;  a  few.  I  should  say  that  when  cases  are  tried 
by  a  jury  we  secure  about  25  or  30  per  cent  of  convictions,  and  those 
are  usually  in  the  smaller  towns  or  some  place  where  the  sentiment  is 
in  favor  of  butter  and  opposed  to  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Were  those  indictments  you  speak  of  indictments 
for  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine  or  for  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine as  butter? 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  Our  law  is  a  little  different  from  most  of  the  State 
laws.  We  do  not  have  indictments. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  The  complaint,  or  whatever  it  was. 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  It  is  a  charge  made  in  the  justice  of  the  peace 
court.  These  cases  that  I  have  mentioned  have  been  for  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine  artificially  colored  contrary  to  law. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Do  these  same  people  defend  the  cases  where  they 
are  tried  for  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter? 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  My  impression  is  that  they  defend  every  case,  but 
I  can  not  recall  now  one  particular  instance  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  remember  making  any  prosecutions  where 
the  complaint  was  that  oleomargarine  was  sold  for  butter  under  your 
State  law? 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  I  remember  of  having  made  a  number  of  such 
prosecutions,  and  according  to  my  recollection — I  will  not  be  positive 
on  that  point — they  were  all  defended  by  the  manufacturers  or  their 
agents. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  What  was  the  result  of  those  prosecutions,  so  far 
as  you  remember? 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  The  majority  of  them  resulted  in  convictions — the 
large  majority. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  what  percentage  of  oleomar- 
garine, in  your  judgment,  in  the  State  of  Ohio  is  sold  for  butter  at 
retail  stores,  or  finally  sold  upon  the  tables  of  hotels,  restaurants,  and 
boarding  houses,  as  well  as  to  the  ordinary  consumer? 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  I  would  have  to  guess  at  that,  Mr.  Adams.  My 
judgment  would  be  75  per  cent  of  it.  I  might  state  that  the  three  lead- 
ing hotels  in  the  city  of  Columbus — the  Chittendon,  the  Neale  House, 
and  the  Southern  Hotel — are  now  and  have  been  for  months  back  using 
oleomargarine  on  their  tables  in  defiance  of  law. 


164  OLEOMABGAKINE. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  They  know  what  they  are  using? 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  Certainly;  the  manager  knows,  but  does  the  guest 
who  pays  $5  a  day  for  entertainment  know? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  They  must  have  good  oleomargarine  when  they 
deceive  the  guests  of  a  $5  a  day  hotel. 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  It  is  good  oleomargarine.  I  have  no  feeling  against 
their  goods  at  all.  That  only  illustrates  the  necessity  for  this  kind  of 
legislation. 

I  have  studied  this  matter  for  four  years.  I  went  into  it  abso- 
lutely without  bias  or  prejudice.  I  do  not  now,  and  never  did,  own 
a  nickel's  worth  of  interest  in  any  dairy  farm  nor  in  any  cow,  nor 
am  I  interested  the  other  way  in  anything  that  goes  into  oleomargarine, 
directly  or  indirectly.  I  have  studied  the  matter  for  four  years,  and 
it  is  my  earnest  conviction  that  it  will  require  national  legislation  of  a 
very  radical  character  to  stamp  the  fraud  out  of  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  oleomargarine,  and  I  refer  especially  to  the  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine, because  the  manufacturer  produces  oleomargarine  as  oleomar- 
garine, and  usually  sells  it  to  the  jobber  and  agent  and  dealer  for 
precisely  what  it  is.  There  is  very  little  deception  practiced  at  that 
stage  of  the  game. 


STATEMENT  OF  FRANCIS  W.  LESTRADE,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
wish  to  state  on  the  outstart  that  it  is  seldom  I  am  called  upon  to  speak 
in  public. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  interested  in  the  manufacture,  are  you,  or 
are  you  acting  as  counsel  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  No;  I  was  about  to  say  that  I  am  nothing  more  than 
a  practical  everyday  butter  man.  I  have  been  in  business  for  twenty 
years,  and  what  I  say  before  you  is  entirely  from  a  practical  stand- 
point, not  a  theoretical  standpoint,  and  not  from  any  scientific  point 
of  view,  but  from  what  has  come  under  my  observation  as  a  butter 
man  ever  since  I  was  a  boy. 

I  am  a  member  of  the  firm  of  Lestrade  Brothers,  New  York  City. 
I  am  an  owner  of  and  interested  in  dairy  farms,  both  in  the  West  and 
in  the  East.  I  am  also  interested  in  cows.  I  am  also  interested  in 
three  different  creameries.  I  am  also,  and  this  is  our  chief  business 
in  the  city,  an  exporter,  a  packer  of  butter  and  cheese  to  the  hot 
countries  as  well  as  to  the  Continent,  but  mostly  to  the  hot  countries. 
Our  business  extends  over  all  the  hot  countries — that  is,  the  tropical 
climates,  consisting  of  the  West  Indies,  the  East  Indies,  South  Africa, 
China,  South  America,  and  even  nowinco  the  Philippine  Islands. 

So  what  I  have  to  say  is  entirely  in  my  own  interest,  and  more  par- 
ticularly as  an  exporter  of  the  genuine  butter  that  goes  out  of  this 
country  to  foreign  climates. 

In  the  few  opening  remarks  that  I  have  to  make  I  may  go  over  some 
ground  with  which  you  are  all  more  or  less  acquainted.  I  desire  to 
state  to  you — maybe  some  of  you  do  not  know  the  fact — that  in  this 
country  of  ours  there  are,  we  will  say,  four  classes  of  butter.  The 
first  is  the  packing  stock,  or  the  original  dairy  butter.  That  is  the 
commonest  butter  that  comes  before  us,  as  butter  men.  It  is  made  by 
the  innumerable  farms  throughout  the  great  West.  We  get  very  little 


OLEOMABGAEINE.  165 

of  it  from  the  Eastern  States;  they  make  little  chunks  of  butter  in 
their  barnyards,  in  their  barns,  on  the  side  stoops  of  their  houses.  I 
mean  the  farmers  who  have  one,  two,  three,  four,  five,  a  dozen,  or  fifty 
cows.  They  bring  these  little  chunks  to  the  country  store  where  they 
trade,  and  this  butter  is  put  before  the  grocer  or  the  provision  man, 
and  in  return  he  gives  them  calicoes  and  groceries  of  different  kinds. 
I  have  a  man  stationed  in  the  West — yes,  two  of  them  in  different 
parts  of  the  West,  and  they  biry  up  this  class  of  butter.  Originally, 
up  to  within  four  or  five  years,  the  price  ran  from  6  to  10  cents  a 
pound.  Ten  cents  was  the  highest  price.  My  men  will  go  around 
and  gather  in  all  this  roll  butter  in  little  pats  of  all  colors  and  descrip- 
tions, wrapped  in  swaddling  clothes  and  old  towels  and  sheets  and 
everything  else,  and  they  are  packed  down  into  tierces  holding  300  to 
400  pounds.  They  are  brought  to  a  central  point  and  then  shipped 
by  the  "carload  to  me  at  New  York  City,  or  else  1  store  the  goods  in 
Chicago  or  in  the  West  until  I  need  them  for  my  manipulation  in  col- 
oring the  butter  and  resalting  it  and  sending  it — most  of  it — to  the  hot 
countries. 

The  second  class  of  butter  that  is  made  in  this  country  is  ladles. 
Ladles  is  made  from  this  same  class  of  butter  I  spoke  of  a  moment 
ago.  The  ladlers  send  out,  as  I  do,  their  men  from  Chicago  and  from 
other  large  places  in  the  West,  and  they  gather  in  this  same  butter  as 
I  do  and  take  it  to  their  creameries — so-called  creameries.  That  is, 
they  make  ladles  out  of  this  butter,  but  they  do  not  use  cream  if  they 
manipulate  it.  It  is  done  with  milk,  but  as  a  rule  it  is  merely  manip- 
ulated with  a  little  salt  and  a  little  water  and  recolored  and  put  up  into 
60-pound  tubs,  and  there  you  have  what  is  called  the  ladle  butter. 

By  a  little  further  process  and  a  little  more  working  you  have  what 
is  commonly  termed  imitation  creamery.  That  is  a  little  higher  order 
of  ladle  butter,  and  that  is  brought  on  to  this  market  and  sold. 

The  next  that  comes  is  the  creamery  butter.  That  is,  as  we  all 
know,  made  out  of  the  very  best  cream,  as  a  rule,  or  we  try  to  make  it 
out  of  the  best  cream;  and  it  is  put  before  those  who  can  pay  the  price 
in  the  East  and  in  the  West. 

There  is  a  new  butter  that  has  come  on  the  stage — what  is  called 
renovated  or  process  butter.  I  may  later  on  refer  to  that  again. 

Right  here  1  would  like  to  say  that  up  to  within  ten  or  possibly 
twelve  years  ago  I  was  preaching  and  talking  and  threatening  my  dif- 
ferent men  throughout  the  country,  telling  them  that  their  butter  was 
poor,  that  we  had  to  contend  with  the  foreign  butter,  and  that  the  for- 
eigners were  making  better  butter  than  we  were  in  this  country;  that 
it  was  hard  work  for  us  to  compete  in  the  hot  countries  and  throughout 
the  foreign  countries  with  the  Danish  butter,  with  the  French  butter, 
with  the  Italian  butter,  with  the  Irish  butter;  that  our  butter  was  poor; 
that  it  would  not  keep,  and  that  we  must  do  something;  that  they  must 
bring  things  up  to  a  higher  level;  that  they  must  take  more  pains  with 
their  butter.  I  sent  them  samples  of  the  Danish  butter.  I  sent  them 
samples  of  the  French  butter.  We  experimented.  I  went  at  that 
time,  at  considerable  cost,  among  the  different  creameries  and  put  in  my 
own  money  to  endeavor  to  raise  the  standard  of  our  butter;  but,  gen- 
tlemen, let  me  tell,  you  as  a  butter  man,  as  a  man  whose  bread  and  but- 
ter— I  mean  that  earnestly — is  entirely  in  the  product  of  butter,  I  tell 
you  honestly  that  when  the  new  product  oleomargarine  came  on  this 
market  some  ten  or  twelve  years  ago,  I  saw  it  and  examined  it,  and  I 


166  OLEOMAKGAKINE. 

said,  ( '  Thank  God  for  oleomargarine. "  Why  ?  Said  I,  t '  That  is  going 
to  bring  up  butter  to  a  higher  grade."  Why,  in  the  old  days  of  twelve 
or  fifteen  years  ago,  when  the  ladle  butter  came  into  our  markets,  we 
called  it  bull  butter.  Invariably  it  was  mushy,  invariably  it  was  soft, 
invariably  almost  it  was  in  lumps,  in  different  colors,  in  globules,  sway- 
ing and  straying  like  a  fluid;  and  I  bought  samples  of  oleomargarine 
and  sent  it  to  our  men  and  said:  "  Gentlemen,  unless  you  can  make  your 
butter  similar  to  oleomargarine,  butter  in  this  country  is  dead."  Why, 
it  opened  their  eyes;  and  then,  by  George,  when  I  sent  them  butterine, 
I  believe  they  called  it,  with  creamery  butter  generally  put  into  it, 
that  smelt  like  a  summer  rose  compared  to  our  creameries,  and  said: 
"Unless  you  can  make  your  creameries  similar  to  that  you  might  as 
well  go  out  of  business,  and  give  it  up  to  this  new  product  that  has 
come  in,"  it  was  the  means,  which  every  butter  man  knows,  of  revolu- 
tionizing butter. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Oh,  no;  we  do  not  know  that. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  know  it  from  a  practical  standpoint.  You  may 
be  a  practical  man — but  I  know  it.  I  have  been  there  all  my  life.  This 
is  a  matter  of  bread  and  butter  to  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Speak  to  the  committee,  please,  Mr.  Lestrade. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  am  particularly  interested  in  butter,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. From  that  time  gradually  everything  changed.  We  began  to 
bring  in  a  better  grade  of  ladles.  We  began  to  bring  in  a  better  grade 
of  imitation  creamery.  We  began  to  bring  in  a  better  grade  of  cream- 
eries, until  to-day  we  have  arrived  at  almost  a  stage  of  perfection  as 
far  as  creameries  are  concerned. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  What  do  they  do  now  with  that  butter  that  you 
used  to  gather  up  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska  ?  How  do  they  handle  it 
or  pack  it  now  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  will  answer  that  now  immediately .,  For  some 
time  it  was  a  question,  of  course,  in  our  minds  as  to  whether  oleomar- 
garine was  not  going  to  knock  things  sideways  as  far  as  the  butter 
interests  of  this  country  were  concerned.  We  watched  it  very  closel}r; 
and  of  ccarse,  naturally,  being  a  practical  man  in  the  business  I 
watched  it,  and  I  found  that  our  dairy  interests  were  growing  very 
rapidly  and  that  we  were  increasing  in  the  quality  of  our  goods  year 
by  year.  I  found,  and  I  still  find  to-day,  that,  as  the  gentleman  who 
first  spoke  here  very  wisely  remarked,  the  butter  industries  of  Penn- 
sylvania are  growing  and  widening  and  more  creameries  are  going  up 
through  that  great  State.  That  is  true.  Instead  of  oleomargarine 
being  a  detriment  to  butter,  it  has,  as  an  absolute  fact,  been  a  great 
benefit  to  all  butter  men.  It  has  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  lowered  the 
price  of  butter.  It  has  not  taken  away  the  profit,  as,  from  a  theoret- 
ical standpoint,  a  great  many  of  these  gentlemen  will  tell  you.  I 
know  differently,  and  I  can  preve  it  and  show  it  to  you. 

Ten  or  twelve  years  ago  this  packing  stock  that  I  spoke  of  we  could 
buy  at  from  7  to  10  cents  a  pound  during  the  spring  months.  New  but- 
ter comes  in  May,  and  we  get  this  butter  in  the  months  of  May,  June, 
Juty,  and  August;  very  little,  however,  in  August.  The  lowest  price 
of  butter  during  the  year  is  in  the  latter  part  of  May,  in  June,  and 
sometimes  in  July.  Year  by  year  I  found,  as  a  large  consumer  of 
this  cheap  article,  that  I  was  obliged  to  pay  more  money  for  it.  This 
was  due  merely  to  the  natural  laws  governing  a  country  like  ours  and 
the  growth  of  it.  But  the  demand  for  butter  outgrew  the  industry, 


OLEOMARGARINE.  167 

and  I  will  merely  state  that  for  the  last  two  years  the  price  has  gradu- 
ally gone  up  from  8  or  10  cents  a  pound  until  a  year  ago  I  put  that  same 
butter  away  at  13  to  14  cents  a  pound.  This  spring  I  put  it  away  at 
from  14  to  16  cents  a  pound.  We  are  obliged  to  put  large  quantities  of 
it  away  for  our  fall  and  winter  use,  for  it  does  not  come  in  quantities 
at  that  time  of  the  year,  so  we  are  obliged  to  buy  it  in  the  flood  in  the 
spring. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  you  permit  a  question  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  How  does  the  quality  of  that  article  compare  now 
with  what  it  was  ten  or  twelve  years  ago ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  It  is  all  made  of  dairy  butter.  Understand,  it  is  not 
ladle  butter.  It  is  not  manufactured  by  machinery  or  anything  like 
that.  It  is  made  by  the  wives  and  daughters  of  the  farmers.  Conse- 
quently it  is  a  hard,  solid  A 1  piece  of  cheap  butter,  made  with  all  the  bac- 
teria and  all  the  parasites  and  everything  else  all  shoved  in  and  brought 
to  us,  and  we  manipulate  it  and  wash  it  and  put  it  on  the  market. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  How  long  have  they  been  making  this  ladle  butter — 
gathering  this  Western  butter  and  making  it  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Since  I  have  been  in  the  business. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  When  they  first  began  there  was  a  great  quantity  of 
it,  was  there  not?  It  was  a  drug  on  the  market? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  A  what? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  A  drug  on  the  market. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Not  necessarily,  unless  it  was  utterly  unfit  for  use. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  This  butter  that  is  brought  in  by  the  Western  farm- 
ers and  gathered  up  by  the  stores  is  sent  to  central  stations  just  as  fast 
as  it  is  produced,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Well,  the  rolls  are. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Would  not  that  account  for  the  increase  in  price? 
When  you  first  began  to  gather  up  this  butter  there  was  no  market 
for  it,  was  there?  It  was  an  experiment,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  No;  it  was  no  experiment.  It  was  an  everyday 
business. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  The  reason  I  asked  this  question  was  that  your  tes- 
timony, so  far  as  it  goes,  is  contrary  to  all  I  have  ever  heard  on  the 
subject,  and  I  have  given  it  a  great  deal  of  study.  I  know  of  your 
firm.  Are  you  not  an  exporter? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Do  you  agree  with  Bardon  Brothers  on  this  propo- 
sition ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  believe  I  do. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Do  you  sell  to  the  home  trade? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  No. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  money  in  the  foreign 
market,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Entirely  as  an  exporter  I  am  now  talking. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Do  you  observe  the  laws  of  your  State  on  this 
subject? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  How  do  you  mean  do  I  observe  them? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Do  you  obey  them  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  hardly  a  fair  question. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  The  point  I  would  like  to  make,  if  the  committee 


168  OLEOMARGARINE. 

will  permit  me,  is  that  this  butter  originally,  when  they  conceived 
the  idea  of  gathering  it  up  from  the  farmers  or  the  stores,  had  never 
been  used.  When  they  found  they  could  use  it,  they  began  to  gather 
it  up,  and  there  came  a  demand  for  it,  and  they  gathered  it  as  fast  as 
it  was  brought,  and  that  raised  the  price. 

Mr.  LESTEADE.  This  gentleman  may  possibly  be  correct  about  that, 
Mr.  Chairman,  thirty  years  ago,  but  I  am  not  going  as  far  back  as 
that — thirty  or  forty  years  ago,  when  there  were  pioneers  in  the 
West — but  it  is  not  correct  since  twenty -five  years  ago;  and  a  quarter 
of  a  century  is  pretty  far  back  to  go. 

I  will  say  also  that  I  do  sell  the  home  trade  in  creameries.  I  am 
interested  in  two  or  three  creameries,  and  I  was  about  to  go  on  to  the 
creamery  question."  The  same  thing  applies  in  regard  to  the  cheapness 
of  creameries.  The  poor  creameries  that  were  coming  East  up  to  the 
time  that  oleomargarine  dawned  upon  the  United  States  were  some- 
thing abominable.  There  was  hardly  such  a  thing  as  knowing  what 
your  next  shipment  would  be.  You  would  get  a  fine  piece  of  butter 
in  to-day,  and  from  the  same  creamery  next  week  you  would  get  a 
poor  piece  of  butter. 

I  state  as  a  fact  that  oleomargarine  did  for  butter  all  I  have  stated. 
The  time  came  when  my  export  trade  and  the  demand  for  creameries 
was  so  great  from  this  country,  on  account  of  our  being  able  to  start 
a  little  bit  of  a  process  of  our  own,  an  imitation  of  the  Danish  process, 
that  I  found  I  had  to  make  some  arrangement  with  some  creamery  in 
this  country  to  make  my  butter.  I  went  to  two  or  three  of  the  best 
creameries  in  New  York  State  and  they  were  unable  or  unwilling  to 
make  the  high  grade  of  butter  that  I  wished  for.  I  went  West  and  the 
same  thing  happened.  I  was  then  obliged  to  go  in  and  put  myself  in 
a  position  to  make  this  butter,  and  the  consequence  is  that  to-day — and 
there  is  no  egotism  on  my  part,  because  the  proof  of  the  pudding  is  in 
the  eating  of  it — we  are  sending  now  butter  in  competition  with  the 
well-known  world-renowned  Danish  butter.  We  are  sending  it  all  over 
South  America,  all  over  the  West  Indies,  down  in  China,  and  down  in 
South  Africa,  but  we  could  not  do  it  until  we  put  up  and  became  inter- 
ested in  our  own  creameries.  Even  to-day  the  creameries  of  this  coun- 
try are  not  making  the  butter  they  should  make. 

Now,  another  thing  right  here  in  regard  to  the  creamery  question, 
and  I  am  endeavoring  to  lead  up  to  a  point  here,  gentlemen  of  the 
committee,  which  I  trust  I  will  be  able  to  make  clear  to  you. 
Another  thing  that  is  detrimental  is  that  the  wonderful  mechanism 
and  discoveries  that  we  have  made  in  regard  to  centrifugal  force  and 
the  different  machinery  used  in  making  butter  is  really  a  detriment  to 
butter  for  this  reason:  That  to-day  the  dairyman,  the  creamery  man, 
wants  to  turn  his  butter  out  in  fifteen  minutes,  and  from  the  cow  he 
wants  to  give  you  a  piece  of  butter  on  your  plate  twelve  or  fifteen  or 
twenty  minutes  after  you  have  seen  the  milk  taken  from  the  cow. 
That  is  all  they  are  aiming  at.  I  heard  one  of  my  neighbors  say  that 
he  thought  he  would  soon  be  able,  with  the  discoveries  that  were 
being  made  and  the  new  processes  that  were  being  used,  to  milk  his 
cow  and  put  butter  into  the  market  the  next  day.  I  do  not  believe  it 
needs  a  very  brilliant  mind  to  know  that  butter  of  that  character  will 
not  stand  up. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  Danish  process  you  have  been  speak- 
ing of  \ 


OLEOMAKGABINE.  169 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  The  Danish  process,  without  going  into  too  much 
detail — there  may  be  other  butter  men  here  and  they  might  catch  on— 
is  a  slow  process.  It  is  an  old-fashioned  process  of  making  butter, 
really. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  they  make  the  butter  with  the  hands  or  machine  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  With  crude  machinery,  in  almost  the  same  way  you 
would  make  it  by  churning  with  your  hand. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  they  let  the  milk  turn  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  nothing  about  it  except  more  care? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  More  care  and  knowing  how  to  work  it,  really. 
What  we  aimed  at  was  to  get  the  consistency  of  body  so  that  it  would 
keep,  so  that  we  can  guarantee  to,the  United  States  Government  when 
making  purchases,  which  we  are  obliged  to  do,  that  the  butter  will 
keep  a  year  without  going  into  liquid  form,  without  going  into  oil  or 
without  getting  strong.  I  do  not  dare  to  take  the  butter  from  any 
creamery  into  this  country  and  put  it  into  my  stock  with  the  idea  that 
it  will  keep  like  that.  So  the  old-fashioned  way,  after  all,  is  best. 
You  and  you  and  you  used  to  buy  your  butter  and  keep  it  all  winter, 
and  it  kept  all  winter;  but  to-day  you  take  one  of  our  fresh  creameries 
and  you  keep  it  a  week  and  it  will  go  strong.  However,  that  we  con- 
sider is  in  the  long  line  of  progress  and  promotion,  and  getting  toward 
the  perfection  of  butter.  In  one  sense  it  is  and  in  another  sense  it  is 
not. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  were  obliged  to  compete  with  this  Danish 
process,  were  you  not? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  were  obliged  to  make  butter  in  the  same 
fashion,  on  the  same  plan,  in  order  to  compete  with  them? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  That  brought  your  butter  up  to  a  higher 
standard  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Up  to  a  higher  standard. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  That  it  was  not  altogether  oleomargarine  that 
brought  the  standard  up  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  The  point  with  oleomargarine  was  that  for  years  I 
was  bothered  to  get  these  men  interested  to  make  better  butter.  They 
would  not  do  it.  I  would  show  them  this  butter.  I  would  show  them 
the  necessity  for  making  better  butter,  but  their  butter  sold  for  a 
figure,  and  consequently  they  were  satisfied;  but  when  oleomargarine 
came  in — I  do  not  know  whether  some  of  these  gentlemen  represent- 
ing these  different  States  were  interested  in  butter  then;  I  do  not  know 
that  they  are  interested  in  butter  now — but  it  created  a  tremendous 
furore  in  the  West,  and  every  butter  man  knows  positively  beyond 
question  that  oleomargarine  had  more  to  do  with  raising  butter  and 
bringing  up  to  a  better  condition  and  a  better  quality  than  all  the  lec- 
tures and  all  the  talks  and  appeals  that  we  could  give  them  by  letter  or 
otherwise.  That  is  known. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit  me — I  do  not  want  to 
bother  him  with  interruptions — he  makes  his  statement  too  sweeping. 
We  have  no  objection  to  the  statement  of  your  belief,  but  some  of  us 
who  have  been  interested  for  many  years  in  the  butter  interest  do  not 
agree  with  you;  so  you  should  not  say  all. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  answer  every  question  put 


170  OLEOMARGARINE. 

to  me,  and  if  I  am  not  able  to  back  it  up  by  facts  and  figures,  I  am 
willing  to  apologize  and  withdraw  my  remarks.  Up  to  the  present 
time  I  am  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  was  in  the  Isle  of  Jersey  and  in  Denmark  a  few 
years  ago,  and  I  noticed  that  the  Jersey  cattle  have  mostly  gone  to 
Denmark. 

Mr.  LESTKADE.  That  is  very  true  in  one  sense. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Jersey  farms  seem  to  have  sold  all  of  their 
best  cattle  to  Denmark. 

Senator  MONEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seem  to  me  we  ought  to  have 
some  rule  about  the  time  these  gentlemen  are  to  be  allowed  to  speak. 
If  their  time  is  to  be  limited,  I  think  interruptions  are  unfair. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  It  will  perhaps  take  Mr.  Lestrade  some  time  to 
rearrange  his  notes.  It  is  now  5  minute^  to  12,  and  we  might  as  well 
take  at  recess  at  this  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Can  you  tell  us  anything  about  how  much  more 
time  you  want  for  the  oleomargarine  people? 

Mr.  POTTER.  There  are  a  number  of  gentlemen  who  want  to  be 
heard  to-morrow,  and  several  cotton-seed  oil  representatives  will  be 
here  Sunday.  They  would  also  like  to  be  heard. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  I  promised  to  hear  them  Monday.  You  will 
want  all  the  time  to-day  and  to-morrow,  will  you? 

Mr.  POTTER.  Yes,  sir;  and  perhaps  Monday  and  Tuesday. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Leaving  out  the  cotton-seed  oil  people,  I  have 
promised  Senator  Penrose  that  some  butter  friends  of  his  might  be 
heard  to-morrow  for  a  little  time,  but  I  will  try  and  not  let  it  inter- 
fere with  you  very  much. 

Mr.  POTTER.  We  have  some  gentlemen  here  who  are  anxious  to  be 
heard  on  lines  that  have  not  been'taken  up  before. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Who,  in  behalf  of  the  Grout  bill,  desire  yet 
to  be  heard  ?  Mr.  Knight,  you  can  tell  us. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Adams,  I  think,  can  give  you  the  information. 
He  and  Governor  Hoard,  I  think,  arranged  that  this  morning. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  had  better  be  postponed  just  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, without  too  great  inconvenience,  until  the  oleomargarine  people 
have  finished. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  1  am  trying,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  get  at  the 
length  of  time  we  are  to  be  employed  here,  because  there  are  members 
of  this  committee  who  have  other  things  to  do. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  1  can  state,  Mr.  Chairman,  with  your  permission,  that 
so  far  as  the  friends  of  the  Grout  bill  are  concerned,  I  think  if  all  our 
representatives  were  here  we  could  close  our  part  of  this  testimon}^ 
in  three  hours.  Governor  Hoard  and  myself  will  remain  here  during 
this  week, 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  take  a  recess  now  until  half  past  2  o'clock. 

The  committee,  at  11.45  a.  m.,  took  a  recess  until  2.30  o'clock  p.  m. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the   committee  resumed  its  session. 

Present:  Senators  Hansbrough  (acting  chairman),  Foster,  and  Heit- 
feld. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Lestrade.  How 
much  further  time  do  you  desire  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  About  half  an  hour,  I  should  think. 


OLEOM  AEG  ABINE.  171 


STATEMENT  OF  FRANCIS  W.  LESTRADE— Resumed. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  The  question  may  arise  in  your  minds,  gentlemen, 
why  am  I  opposed  to  this  bill,  as  all  my  interests — my  money,  what 
little  I  have,  or  the  greater  part  of  it — are  in  butter.  It  is  merely  this: 
That,  as  I  have  stated,  oleomargarine  has  been  a  friend  to  butter — 
has  made  us  dairymen,  farmers,  creamery  men,  make  better  butter. 
The  second  reason  is  that  the  dairymen  throughout  the  United  States 
are  getting  a  good  profit  on  their  butter.  We  are  making  money. 
My  creameries  are  making  money.  1  do  not  know  of  any  creameries 
that  are  not  making  money.  We  are  making  from  10  to  50  per  cent. 
Legitimately  we  are  making  from  10  to  20  per  cent;  speculatively  we 
are  making  a  great  deal  more. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Will  you  allow  me  to  ask  you  a  question  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Are  you  a  creamery  man  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes,  sir;  that  is,  I  am  interested  in  creameries;  I 
am  interested  in  three  of  them. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  say  you  are  making  from  10  to  50  per  cent? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  said  from  10  to  20  per  cent  legitimately,  and  we 
do  make  as  high  as  50  per  cent  at  times. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Do  you  mean  as  the  owner  of  a  creamery? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  No,  sir;  in  selling  our  butter.  I  will  give  you  an 
illustration  in  a  very  few  minutes.  As  I  stated  this  morning,  the 
prices  of  butter  are  gradually  advancing  in  this  country.  The  output 
is  larger  every  year,  as  I  presume  you  know  from  statistics,  yet  the 
price  is  gradually  going  up  each  spring  when  new  butter  comes  in. 
A  few  years  ago,  as  I  stated,  we  could  buy  this  packing  stock,  this 
original  stock  which  I  described,  at  all  the  way  from  6  to  9  and  10 
cents.  At  times  it  would  run  as  low  as  3  cents  a  pound.  I  bought 
thousands  and  thousands  of  pounds  of  it  within  ten  or  twelve  years  at 
3  to  4  cents  a  pound.  The  markets  were  flooded  with  it.  Latterly, 
on  account  of  the  general  prosperity  of  the  country  and  the  increase 
of  inhabitants,  it  has  maintained  its  position,  until  in  the  year  1898,  I 
think  it  was — a  year  ago  last  spring — prices  went  to  13,  13i,  and  14 
cents.  This  year  it  went  as  high  as  15  to  16  cents— that  is,  when  the 
new  butter  came  in.  That  is  supposed  to  be  the  lowest  price  of  the 
year,  and  there  has  been  an  advance  of  4  to  6  cents  a  pound  over  pre- 
vious years.  This  is  in  the  face  of  increase  of  oleomargarine  also 
throughout  the  country,  and  in  the  face  of  the  howl  that  is  set  up  by 
those  who  really  do  not  study  the  true  condition  of  the  dairy  interests. 
If  I  remember"  rightly,  in  the  year  1898  or  1899  the  output  of  oleo 
was  from  80,000,000  to  100,000,000  pounds. 

Mr.  CLARK.  It  was  107,000,000  pounds  last  year. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  It  was  about  91,000,000  pounds  in  1898.  Notwith- 
standing that,  the  cheapest  kind  of  butter,  that  we  used  to  buy  at  9  to 
10  cents  a  pound  started  in  this  year  on  a  basis  of  13  and  14  cents  a 
pound,  and  1  put  away  thousands  of  pounds  at  15  cents. 

Mr.  HOARD.  What  do  you  mean  by  saying  you  put  it  away  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  We  are  obliged  to  put  it  away  for  use  in  the  winter, 
for  we  can  not  get  it  in  the  fall  and  in  the  winter.  It  is  not  made 
throughout  the  West. 

Mr.  HOARD.  How  do  you  put  it  away  ? 


172  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Cold  storage.  Creamery  started  in  on  a  basis  of  17 
and  18  cents.  I  am  speaking  of  1898,  a  year  ago  last  spring.  That  is 
when  the  new  creamery  butter  begins.  They  begin  to  come  in  the  last 
of  May,  and  during  June  and  July.  The  market  started  at  16i  to  17 
cents.  Even  that  leaves  a  profit  to  us  creamery  men.  The  market 
gradually  rose  from  16^  and  crept  up.  It  kept  quiet  during  the  month 
of  July,  and  then  the  export  men  started  in  again.  Then  we  gradually 
raised  the  price  of  our  held  creameries — 1  mean  our  June  goods  that 
were  put  in  cold  storage — and  some  of  us  sold  out  as  high  as  28  and 
30  cents.  That  is  where  the  illegitimate  profits  come  in. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  are  not  a  patron  to  creameries  ? 

Mr:  LESTRADE.  I  am  a  part  owner  of  three  creameries. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  are  not  a  man  who  supplies  milk  to  the  creameries? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  No. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  are  not  speaking  of  the  cost  of  butter  to  the  farmer, 
are  you? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  No;  the  cost  of  butter  to  the  creamery  man,  to  the 
patrons,  to  the  farmers  who  own  the  creameries. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Not  to  the  patrons  ?  The  patrons  are  the  farmers  who 
supply  the  milk? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes;  and  they  are  also  interested  in  creameries,  as 
I  am. 

Mr.  HOARD.  No;  only  very  few  of  them. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  They  ought  to  be,  then.  They  are  not  looking  after 
their  own  interests  if  they  are  not.  Every  farmer  ought  to  be  inter- 
ested in  a  creamery. 

Mr.  HOARD.  We  have  80  patrons  in  10  creameries  and  not  a  man  of 
them  owns  a  dollar  in  them. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Then  it  is  a  monopoly. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  may  call  it  what  you  please.  They  control  the 
proposition. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  They  should  own  them.  That  is  what  I  am  advo- 
cating, gentlemen,  now,  as  a  butter  man.  I  say  to  the  farmers:  "Put 
up  your  own  creameries.  There  is  money  in  it."  I  am  now  advoca- 
ting buying  farm  land  in  Massachusetts  that  has  been  lying  idle,  and 
farm  land  in  New  Hampshire.  I  went  up  to  see  some  most  elegant 
land,  where  the  springs  are  constantly  cold  in  midsummer,  and  I  said 
to  those  gentlemen:  "Why,  men,  fellow-dairymen,  fellow-farmers, 
there  is  money  in  butter.  Why  don't  you  put  your  money  in  it? 
Instead  of  growling  that  you  can  not  get  anything  out  of  milk,  put 
your  money  into  creameries  instead  of  selling  your  milk."  The  gen- 
tleman who  preceded  me,  the  food  commissioner  of  one  of  the  Western 
States,  made  this  remark,  at  which  I  could  not  help  smiling,  that  in 
the  winter,  when  butter  is  hard  to  get  and  high  in  price,  then  the  oleo 
man  gets  in  his  licks.  He  did  not  use  that  term,  but  that  is  what  he 
meant.  You  have  no  business  to  have  butter  so  high  in  winter  and 
hard  to  get  if  }TOU  manage  your  milk  right,  if  you  feed  your  cows  right, 
if  you  look  after  them  and  take  an  interest  in  them.  In  other  words, 
I  do  not  blame  the  farmers  so  much.  They  are  being  educated  every 
day.  We  are  all  trying  to  educate  them — we  who  have  other  indus- 
tries, we  who  are  distributing  this  butter  right  and  left  throughout 
the  United  States  and  throughout  the  world.  We  are  endeavoring  to 
educate  the  farmer  to  that  extent,  but  he  works  slowly.  It  is  hard  for 
him  to  make  a  change.  It  is  hard  even  to  induce  him  to  use  new  imple- 


OLEOMARGAKINE.  1 73 

ments — these  new  ideas  of  making  butter  fast  by  machinery  and  by 
centrifugal  force,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  They  will  gradually  get 
there,  but  the  great  dairy  industry  of  this  country  has  not  begun  to 
show  itself.  There  is  a  tremendous  field  for  it. 

Now  to  go  back.  Butter  started  in  1898 — notwithstanding  this 
80,000,000  to  100,000,000  pounds  of  oleo— started  in  at  the  beginning 
of  the  season,  with  new  butter,  when  prices  are  supposed  to  be  the 
lowest  of  the  year,  on  a  basis  of  from  16i  to  17  cents. 

Mr.  HOARD.  That  was  creamery  butter  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  am  speaking  now  of  creamery.  The  demand  was 
so  great  throughout  the  United  States  and  abroad  that  the  price  grad- 
ually arose  to  21,  22,  24,  26,  and  some  of  it  sold  at  as  high  as  27  and 
28  cents.  That  butter  cost  all  the  way  from  17  to  20  cents.  The 
export  that  year  was  about  14,000,000  pounds,  if  I  remember  rightly. 
In  the  spring  of  this  year,  to  our  dismay — for  we  have  not  felt  the 
effects  of  it  yet;  1  fear  we  will — this  packing  stock  I  spoke  of  this 
morning — this  ladle  stock,  this  original  butter  out  of  which  we  make 
ladles — started  in  on  the  high  basis  of  from  14  to  15  cents;  and  a  great 
deal  of  it  was  bought  during  the  low  prices,  what  we  call  low  prices, 
the  spring  prices,  at  15  to  16  cents.  This  is  a  most  phenomenal  price. 
It  can  hardly  be  conceived  of. 

This  spring  creameries  started  in  at  19  cents.  Very  few  of  them 
were  sold  below  19  cents.  These  were  put  away  in  cold  storage,  for 
that  is  the  business  of  the  country  generally  to-day.  It  is  an  under- 
stood thing.  It  is  hardly  called  speculative  to-day,  although  it  is 
speculation;  but  there  is  hardly  ever  a  time  that  a  creamery  man  or  a 
dairy  man  or  a  commission  man  or  a  speculator  can  not  buy  his 
creameries  in  the  spring  and  put  them  in  cold  storage  during  the 
months  of  June  and  July,  and  keep  them  until  summer  or  fall  and 
sell  them  at  a  handsome  profit.  Creameries  started  in  at  a  very  high 
figure,  19  cents,  one  of  the  highest  figures  that  they  ever  reached  for 
the  spring  of  the  year.  The  price  gradually  rose  from  19  to  21,  22, 
and  23  cents,  and  they  have  been  selling  as  high  as  24  cents.  I,  myself, 
on  account  of  the  demand  that  I  have  had  from  abroad,  bought  within 
a  month  over  a  thousand  tubs  of  creamery  that  cost  the  creamery  from 
16^  to  17  cents,  not  over  17  cents.  I  bought  them  at  23£  cents  in  St. 
Lawrence  County,  put  down  in  New  York.  If  the  farmers  are  patrons 
of  those  creameries  they  should  also  be  part  owners  and  have  derived 
the  benefit  of  that  advance  of  from  4  to  5  cents  a  pound. 

Now,  you  see  the  position  of  the  butter  industry  in  this  country.  It 
is  a  money-making  industry  and  always  will  be,  if  properly  conducted. 
You  ask,  What  has  oleo  to  do  with  this,  and  why  is  it  that  there  is  such 
an  earnest  attempt  on  the  part  of  somebody  to  crowd  out  that  product? 
Speaking  from  the  standpoint  of  an  expert,  on  account  of  the  legitimate 
rise  in  value  of  cheap  goods  and  of  creameries,  we  exporters  are  hay- 
ing a  hard  time  of  it,  leaving  the  oleo  out.  We  find  that  we  can  ship 
this  cheap  roll  butter,  this  packing  stock  that  I  spoke  of,  at  16, 17,  and 
18  cents  in  tins  to  the  hot  countries  or  throughout  the  world  and  get 
back  a  reasonable  profit,  but  we  find  that  through  legitimate  sources 
and  the  call  for  these  cheap  goods  throughout  the  country,  as  I  say, 
they  have  put  the  price  of  original  stock  up  to  15  or  16  cents.  We  are 
crowded  pretty  hard  to  see  where  our  profit  is  coming  in,  for  the  rea- 
son that  the  foreign  market — the  Danish  market,  the  Italian  market,  the 
French  market,  the  Irish  market,  and  the  Australian  market — are  able 


174  OLEOMARGARINE. 

then  to  compete  with  us.  They  can  put  their  butter  in  South  America. 
in  South  Africa,  and  throughout  the  West  Indies  on  a  basis  of  17  to 
18  cents.  That  is,  their  cheap  butter.  When  we  come  to  creameries, 
when  we  are  obliged  to  pay  24.  io.  and  26  cents  for  creameries,  we  find 
that  we  are  being  again  crowded  close,  because  the  foreigners  can  put 
their  foreign  butter  throughout  the  world  at  that  price,  and  a  little  le>>. 

It  may  surprise  you,  gentlemen,  but  within  ten  years  we  were  selling 
and  sending  to  the  hot  countries  about  10  per  cent  of  the  butter  that 
they  use.  Ninety  per  cent  has  been  placed  by  the  foreign  markets  in 
those  countries.  We  have  increased,  that,  I  am  happy  to  say.  about  4 
per  cent,  mostly  through  our  creamery  butter.  We  have  had  a  hard 
time  of  it  to  get  our  creamery  butter  into  these  foreign  markets  <  ,n 
account  of  the  fact,  as  I  remarked  this  morning,  that  we  did  not  make 
creamery  butter  as  it  should  be  made.  With  our  usual  way  of  doing 
things  here,  the  high  nervous  temperament  in  which  we  all  live,  our 
great  ambition  is  to  turn  out  butter  quick — turn  it  out  with  a  magnifi- 
cent flavor,  and  let  it  take  its  chance  to  keep,  Consequently  we  could 
not  ship  that  butter.  The  process  I  am  using  now,  that  1  am  advo- 
cating right  and  left  among  the  best  creameries  I  can  get  hold  of,  is 
to  change  that  all  and  make  a  better  butter,  costing  a  little  more:  but 
the  demand  for  butter  is  so  great  that  they  can  well  afford  to  do  it. 

If  you  put  this  tax  on  oleomargarine,  which.  I  think  we  all  agree, 
means  a  prohibitory  tax,  means  the  wiping  out  of  the  80,000,000 
pounds  or  the  107,000,000  pounds  per  year,  what  is  going  to  tak 
place?  What  am  I  going  to  do  to  take  the  place  of  oleomargarine  \ 
In  my  study  as  a  practical  man,  and  having  come  in  contact  with  it  in 
my  butter  industry  and  seeing  the  effect  it  had  on  butter  twelve  or 
fifteen  years  ago,  I  noticed  and  recognized  fully  it  is.  as  it  were,  a 
counterbalance  to  a  small  extent  on  butter.  It  keeps  the  price  of 
butter  down  to  a  certain  extent.  It  prevents,  to  a  larger"  extent. 
manipulation  and  speculation  in  Dutter.  You  gentlemen  from  Illinois 
well  know,  and  I  know  also,  that  you  would  love  to  corner  butter  if 
you  could,  but  you  have  not  been  able  to  do  it.  You  have  tried  it 
over  and  over  again  and  met  your  fate.  I  have  been  asked  to  go  into 
it  many  a  time;  but  fortunately  having  my  interests  in  the  East  more, 
although  I  buy  largely  from  you,  I  have  refused;  but  every  time  you 
have  tried  to  corner  butter  you  have  failed,  for  up  to  this  time  there 
has  been  sufficient  butter  to  prevent  it,  although  you,  gentlemen, 
readily  see  by  the  remarks  that  have  gone  before  me  on  the  part  of 
the  dairy  interests  that  we  do  not  begin  to  have  sufficient  butter  to 
supply  this  country. 

Butter  goes  higher  and  higher  every  winter.  It  starts  in  higher 
and  higher  every  spring.  Consequently  I  say  from  my  observation 
that  if  you  wipe  out  oleo  and  place  107,000,000  pounds  of  that  stutf.  you 
open  a  dangerous  channel,  and  butter  is  bound  to  be  hurt  by  it.  We 
dairymen  are  bound  to  be  hurt  by  it.  It  will  give  an  opportunity  to 
men  like  Swift  or  Armour  or  any  other  man  who  has  large  sun 
money  to  invest  to  go  in  and  speculate.  Do  the  farmers  want  that? 
My  friend  says  the  farmers  are  not  interested  as  a  rule  in  the  cream- 
eries themselves.  Then,  consequently,  in  the  end  they  will  be  hurt  by 
it.  Butter  at  times  will  go  up  high,  it  is  true,  on  account  of  specula- 
tion, by  taking  away  that  which  up  to  now  has  regulated  it.  After  all, 
I  ask  you  again,  what  hurt  does  oleo  do  \  If  it  were  not  for  a  few 
agitators  who  really  are  theorists,  who  really  do  not  have  the  best 


OLEOMARGARINE.  175 

interests  of  the  dairy  industry  at  heart,  you  would  not  know  anything 
about  oleo  in  the  dairy  interest.  I  have  proveii  that  by  my  figures. 
You  would  never  think  of  it.  Every  year  our  butter  interests  are 
growing,  and  we  are  making  more  money,  and  it  is  a  better  profit  on 
our  speculation  or  on  our  investment.  Consequently  I  say  let  well 
alone.  Do  not  wipe  it  out. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Do  you  say  that  the  average  wholesale  prices  of  butter 
have  been  increasing  for  a  number  of  }rears? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  say  that  the  lowest  prices  in  the  spring  have  been 
gradually  working  up  on  a  higher  level  for  the  last  five  years. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Have  the  average  prices  of  butter  for  the  whole  year 
been  increasing  for,  say,  five  or  six  years? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes;  they  have  been  increasing. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Have  they  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes.  If  you  will  allow  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will 
read  from  a  report  that  I  happened  to  pick  up  yesterday  in  my  office 
just  before  starting.  This  is  a  report  from  Mr.  Kracke,  of  New  York, 
the  associate  of  the  gentleman  who  spoke  this  morning.  Mr.  Kracke 
is  your  associate,  is  he  not  ? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  This  report  is  as  follows: 

"BUTTER  TRADE  OF  1900 — RECEIPTS  SHOW  A  GAIN  OF  NEARLY  48,000 

PACKAGES  FOR  THE  YEAR — LARGE  FALLING  OFF  IN  EXPORTS- 
HOME  CONSUMPTIVE  DEMAND  VERY  LARGE,  WHICH  GIVES  A  HIGHER 
AVERAGE  PRICE  FOR  NEARLY  ALL  DESCRIPTIONS. 

"Not  for  many  years,  if  ever,  has  the  butter  trade  of  the  country 
seen  just  such  conditions  as  we  have  had  during  the  year  1900,  and 
while  many  of  the  dealers  and  speculative  operators  will  have  no 
regret  that  the  year  has  closed,  because 'of  the  small  margins  they 
have  had,  the  producers  of  butter  will  find  much  of  encouragement 
and  satisfaction  in  the  larger  consumptive  demand  and  better  average 
prices  realized. 

"The  product  of  the  country  has  been  larger;  how  much  it  is  impos- 
sible to  say.  New  York's  receipts  show  an  increase  of  2£  per  cent, 
the  total  arrivals  being  1,999, 874  packages,  as  compared  with  1,951,957 
packages  the  preceding  year,  1,974,071  packages  in  1898,  and  2,109,503 
packages  in  1897.  This  is  the  first  time  for  more  than  three  years  that 
there  has  been  an  increase  rather  than  a  decrease.  What  is  true  of 
New  York  is  to  some  extent  true  of  other  large  distributing  centers, 
and  with  the  known  fact  that  the  consumption  in  the  producing  sec- 
tions has  been  expanding  steadily,  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  the 
total  output  of  butter  for  the  country  has  been  fully  2  per  cent  greater 
than  in  1899.  This  increase  is  encouraging,  as  it  indicates  a  disposi- 
tion to  give  the  dairy  a  better  place  on  the  farm. 

"The  first  three  months  showed  a  considerable  falling  off  in  receipts, 
due  to  only  fair  conditions  for  making  butter  and  the  fact  that  the 
storage  stocks  of  the  country  were  entirely  exhausted." 

Some  of  these  men  endeavored  to  get  me  interested  in  this  dairy 
association.  I  am  opposed  to  them  merely  on  the  ground  that  I  con- 
sider that  they  are  working  against  my  interests  as  a  dairyman,  against 
my  interests  as  a  creamery  man,  and  against  my  interests  as  a  farmer. 
They  said  to  me,  "Look  at  the  surplus  of  butter  we  have  constantly 


176  OLEOMAEGAKINE. 

over."  I  said  to  them,  "My  dear  sir,  go  and  study  the  statistics  for 
last  year  and  you  will  find  there  was  no  surplus.  The  year  before 
you  made  no  surplus.  The  year  before  that  you  made  no  surplus;  and 
the  year  before  that  I  think  there  was  a  surplus  on  account  of  the 
depression  in  this  country,  which  all  of  us  have  been  through.  I  will 
proceed  with  this  report: 

"Not  until  June  did  the  arrivals  begin  to  run  ahead,  and  the  gain 
was  less  than  10  per  cent  during  the  summer  months.  From  Septem- 
ber on,  however,  the  increase  was  marked,  and  during  December  the 
gain  was  a  little  over  30  per  cent.  This  was  due  in  large  measure  to 
the  rapid  unloading  of  western  refrigerators,  the  butter  coming  this 
way  because  of  the  strength  of  our  market. 

"  There  has  been  a  marked  falling  off  in  exports  of  butter  from  all 
the  ports  of  this  country.  New  York  shipped  9,723,397  pounds,  only 
a  little  more  than  one-half  the  amount  that  was  cleared  through  this 
port  during  1899.  Of  these  shipments  81,786  packages,  or,  say, 
4,089,300  pounds,  went  to  the  markets  of  Great  Britain,  Germany, 
Denmark,  and  Scandinavia,  and  about  5,633,097  pounds  were  sent  to 
the  tropical  countries,  mainly  South  America  and  the  West  Indies. 
This  shows  a  falling  off  in  the  latter  business  of  nearly  1,000,000 
pounds,  which  was  lost  to  us  during  the  early  part  of  the  year  when 
packing  stock  was  so  scarce  and  high.  We  have  found  it  impracticable 
to  attempt  to  compete  much  with  other  countries  for  the  English  trade, 
except  in  certain  grades  of  which  we  had  a  sufficient  surplus  here  to 
undersell  other  points.  Most  of  the  year  the  table  grades  of  butter 
have  been  relatively  higher  on  this  side  of  the  ocean  than  in  Great 
Britain. 

"After  the  little  flurry  just  at  the  opening  of  the  year  when  prices 
momentarily  touched  so  dizzy  a  height — 30  cents." 

That  was  for  old  goods,  held  goods,  goods  bought  in  June  and  put 
away  and  sold  in  the  fall  at  30  cents  a  pound  and  costing  from  16  to  17 
cents. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Sold  where? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  That  is  in  the  creamery. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Sold  at  30  cents  a  pound;  cold-storage  butter? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  That  is,  according  to  Mr.  Kracke. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Sold  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Sold  in  New  York  City. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Do  you  know  of  any  cold-storage  butter  selling  last 
year  at  30  cents  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes;  I  sold  them  at  30  cents.  I  sold  June  goods  a 
year  ago  in  September  at  30  cents — a  year  ago  this  fall. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  was  the  market  for  fancy  creameries  at  that  time 
in  New  York? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  For  fresh  goods? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Very  close.  They  ran  right  along  together,  because 
the  fresh  goods  were  very  scarce,  and  that  is  the  reason  old  goods  went 
up.  We  could  not  get  the  fresh  goods,  because  they  were  not  being 
made. 

"The  market  got  down  to  a  fairly  conservative  basis  until  the 
storage  season  opened,  when  the  competition  set  in  keen  because  of  the 
large  profits  realized  on  the  1899  crop,  and  speculative  operations 
largely  controlled  values  during  the  summer.  The  average  price  of 


OLEOMAKGAKESTE.  177 

fancy  creamery  during  June  was  19|  cents  and  for  July  19^  cents, 
which  was  more  than  1  cent  per  pound  higher  than  in  the  previous 
year.  Kelatively  full  rates  were  maintained  later,  and  when  we  got 
well  into  the  fall  business  was  so  good  that  prices  steadily  hardened, 
reaching  the  high  figure  of  27  cents  about  the  middle  of  November, 
which  held  for  a  week  and  then  settled  back  gradually." 

Mr.  HOARD.  That  is,  New  York  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes;  New  York,  and  there  was  only  about  a  cent's 
difference  in  Chicago. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  That  is  the  wholesale  price  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes,  sir;  wholesale  prices. 

"  The  average  for  the  year  was  22f  cents  for  creamery  as  compared 
with  21-J  cents  in  1899  and  19£  cents  in  both  1898  and  1897.  The 
lowest  point  of  the  season — 18  cents — was  late  in  April,  before  we 
reached  grass  butter." 

I  wish  to  call  your  attention,  gentlemen,  to  the  fact  that  in  1898  and 
1897,  when  the  output  of  oleomargarine  was  in  the  neighborhood  of 
60,000,000  pounds,  or  possibly  70,000,000  pounds,  the  price  of  butter 
was  only  19  cents. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  What  year  was  that? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  In  1898  and  in  1897.  The  average,  I  mean,  for  the 
year  was  only  about  19^  cents  when  the  output  of  oleo  was,  1  should 
imagine,  from  60,000,000  to  70,000,000  pounds,  and  butter  went  up 
to  from  19i  to  22*  cents  average  price  on  an  output  of  108,000,000 
pounds  oleomargarine. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Does  the  price  of  oleomargarine  fluctuate? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  No;  I  do  not  believe  it  ever  does.  Does  it,  gen- 
tlemen ? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Oh,  yes;  it  changes  some. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  suppose  it  does.  We  send  a  good  deal  of  oil  to 
Rotterdam,  and  I  suppose  that  is  what  makes  the  fluctuation  of  it. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  In  the  report  of  Mr.  Kracke,  the  assistant  in  the 
agricultural  department  of  New  York  State 

Mr.  SCHELL.  He  is  the  principal,  is  he  not? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Mr.  Kracke  is  in  charge  of  the  work  in  the  central 
division. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  May  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Lestrade,  the  market  price  of 
butter  in  New  York  to-day  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  About  25  or  26  cents  is  the  average  price. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Is  that  the  quoted  price — the  official  price? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  what  was  it  a  year  ago  at  this  time;  do  you 
remember? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  think  27  or  28  cents ;  possibly  higher.  I  do  not 
remember,  exactly.  It  may  have  been  30  cents. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  about  5  cents  cheaper  than  it  was  a  year  ago  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes.  I  do  not  want  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  pro- 
hibited. I  want  it  for  a  balance,  so  to  speak,  to  keep  wild  speculation 
down.  I  can  not  afford  as  a  creamery  man,  a  man  interested  in  butter, 
to  put  myself  in  the  position,  if  I  can  help  it,  of  allowing  speculators 
to  come  in  and  manipulate  butter.  It  is  bad  enough  now  as  it  is;  but 
wipe  out  oleo,  which  you  will  if  you  put  this  10 -cent  prohibitory  tax 
on,  and  there  is  not  a  man  in  the  country  could  do  anything  in  regard 

S.  Rep.  2043 12 


178  OLEOMARGARINE. 

to  steady  prices.  They  can  no  more  sell  oleomargarine  white  than 
you  could  sell  butter  white.  I  have  made  white  butter  up  in  small 
quantities,  and  the  only  people  who  take  white  butter  are  our  friends, 
the  Israelites,  and  they  only  take  it  in  small  quantities. 

Mr.  HOARD.  One  firm  in  Milwaukee  sells  30,000  pounds  of  white 
oleomargarine  a  year — one  retail  firm. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Did  you  read  the  first  column  of  this  paper  you  had 
in  your  hand? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  read  all  that  article. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  That  is  not  by  Mr.  Kracke. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  say  oleomargarine  would  not  be  sold  at  all  in  its 
natural  state  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  say  it  would  not. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  What  class  of  people  use  this  30,000  pounds  you 
spoke  about,  Governor  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  The  Polaks  and  Bohemians. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  venture  to  say  there  are  not  30,000  pounds  of 
uncolored  oleomargarine  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  may  venture  to  say  so,  but  the  statement  was  made 
by  the  firm  in  Milwaukee  who  sold  it. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  In  regard  to  this  report  from  which  I  read,  which 
I  picked  up  yesterday  in  my  office,  I  wish  to  say  that  it  is  in  The 
New  York  Produce  Review  and  American  Creamery.  I  inquired  who 
wrote  this  article,  or  who  gave  the  figures,  and  they  told  me  Mr. 
Kracke.  You  sa}^  he  did  not  write  this  article? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  The  last  column  is  an  excerpt  from  his  report  to  us 
at  the  Albany  office.  The  first  two  columns  are  not  his,  and  you  read 
from  them. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  These  were  not  compiled  by  him,  then  ? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  No.  1  was  a  little  astonished,  because  his  report 
comes  to  me  personally,  and  I  did  not  recognize  what  you  read  as  part 
of  his  report. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Whose  report  is  it? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  It  is  the  New  York  Produce  Review  and  American 
Creamery,  a  dairymen's  paper  from  the  city  of  New  York. 

Senator  FOSTER.  What  you  read  was  probably  written  by  some 
editor? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes.  I  asked  one  of  the  assistants  yesterday  where 
they  got  their  figures,  and  I  understood  him  to  say  they  got  them  from 
Mr.  Kracke.  The  record  of  cases  he  has  tried,  etc.,  is  on  the  same 
page. 

Now,  if  you  will  allow  me  one  minute  longer,  sir,  I  will  try  to  finish 
what  I  have  to  say  in  my  crude  manner.  If  I  had  the  eloquence  of 
you  three  gentlemen  as  public  men,  I  do  not  question  that  I  could  con- 
vince you  of  the  fallacy  of  attempting  to  put  what  I  consider  a  dangerous 
precedent  upon  the  dairy  interests  of  this  country.  1  know  conclu- 
sively that  it  will  wipe  out  the  export  trade.  I  know  conclusively  that 
it  will  open  the  door  for  gigantic  speculation,  for  cornering.  It  will 
be  possible  to  do  that.  We  can  almost  do  it  now  at  times.  I  am  free 
to  confess  that  I  have  been  in  where  we  have  made  some  money  cor- 
nering certain  butter  in  certain  parts  of  the  country ;  and  why  is  not 
the  question  pertinent  to  you  as  well  as  to  me  and  to  all  of  our  dairy- 
men and  men  interested  in  butter  ?  Then  what  is  the  trouble  ?  Merely 
that  we  are  not  making  butter  enough.  If  we  want  to  fight  oleomar- 


OLEOMAKGAKiNE.  179 

garine,  let  us  fight  them  with  their  own  weapons.  Let  us  make  more 
butter.  Let  us  make  bettei  butter.  Let  us  make  more  creamery  butter 
and  fight  them  that  way.  .  We  have  got  a  wide  margin  yet.  We  have 
got  a  good  profit  yet  in  butter.  There  is  no  danger  of  oleomargarine, 
as  one  gentleman  said  this  morning,  wiping  out  the  butter  industry. 
It  has  not  wiped  out  the  butter  industry.  Oleomargarine  has  been 
advancing  year  after  year  in  quantity,  and  butter  has  been  advancing 
year  after  year  in  quantity  and  going  up  in  price,  and  there  has  been 
a  better  profit  year  after  year.  Consequently  there  is  no  danger  in 
that  way.  So,  if  you  want  to  do  anything,  if  you  want  to  go  to  an 
extreme,  why  not  propose  to  you  gentlemen  down  here  in  Washington 
to  take  the  2-cent  tax  on  oleomargarine — there  is  a  good  deal  of  talk 
about  subsidies  just  now — and  give  that  2-cent  tax  as  a  subsidy  to  the 
farmers  to  make  better  butter  and  fight  oleomargarine  in  that  way, 
the  same  as  England  did  with  Australia.  The  dairymen  down  in  Aus- 
tralia made  nothing  but  the  same  kind  of  truck  which  we  were  making 
before  oleomargarine  came  into  the  country.  It  was  so  bad  that  it 
was  damped  in  the  sea  when  it  arrived  in  England;  and  England 
offered  a  subsidy. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Did  England  offer  the  subsidy  or  did  Australia  offer  it? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  England.     Australia  is  a  colony  of  England. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  know  that,  but  did  England  offer  the  subsidy? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  What  difference  does  it  make  ? 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  makes  a  great  deal  of  difference.  One  is  a  colonial 
subsidy  and  the  other  is  a  general  subsidy.  This  was  a  colonial  subsidy. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  matter  of  argument.  It  makes  no 
difference  whether  the  colonial  government  offered  it  or  whether  Eng- 
land offered  it.  There  was  a  subsidy  offered  to  Australia  for  a  better 
grade  of  butter.  If  it  came  up  to  a  certain  test  they  were  to  receive 
a  certain  percentage.  I  do  not  recall  it  now,  but  possibly,  we  will  say, 
a  shilling  on  so  many  pounds.  To-day  the  quantity  of  butter  has 
advanced  from  250,000  pounds  a  year  to  two  or  three  or  four  million 
pounds  a  year,  and  they  are  putting  as  fine  a  piece  of  creamery  butter 
into  England  as  you  want  to  see.  That  was  done  by  subsidy.  I  say 
to  the  farmer  and  I  say  to  Congress,  if  you  want  to  do  something  for  the 
farmers,  give  them  2  cents  as  a  subsidy  and  fight  the  oleomargarine,  so 
that  we  will  make  a  better  creamery. 

In  talking  to  some  of  the  gentlemen  connected  with  the  dairy  asso- 
cation  I  have  said  to  them,  "As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  and  I  know  that 
oleo  is  not  hurting  butter  in  this  country."  They  said,  "Well,  we  are 
going  to  wipe  it  out.  It  has  got  to  be  wiped  out."  Then  I  used  the 
arguments  that  I  have  used  to  you.  I  told  them  my  position  per- 
sonally— that  cheap  butter  was  getting  to  that  price  that  very  soon  if 
it  kept  on  I  could  not  ship  it;  that  all  our  export  would  stop.  They 
had  no  answer  to  that  except  to  say,  "  Well,  we  are  going  to  wipe  out 
oleo  if  we  can."  I  said,  "All  right;  it  will  give  a  chance  to  you  fellows 
who  have  a  lot  of  money  to  go  ahead  and  speculate."  They  said, 
' '  That  may  be.  We  won't  make  money  on  the  other  side  of  the  grave. " 
I  said,  "That  will  be  benefiting  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the  dairy 
interests  again,  and  they  will  be  the  losers."  I  am  trying  now  to 
interest  a  certain  number  of  farmers  up  in  Massachusetts  to  buy  cer- 
tain lands  that  I  know  of  where  there  is  good  cold  water  and  endeavor 
to  make  a  cooperative  society  there  for  the  making  of  fancy  creameries 
by  the  Danish  process, 


1 80  OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  butter  that  I  am  making  to-day  will  bring  from  1  to  2  and  2£ 
cents  more  a  pound  than  the  best  fancy  extra  butter  that  you  can  send 
out  of  Chicago,  and  there  is  butter  which  is  selling  to-day,  as  you  dairy- 
men know,  if  there  are  any  of  you  here,  as  high  as  40  and  50  cents  a 
pound.  Do  you  think  that  it  is  merely  being  sold  on  the  brand  ?  It  is 
not.  It  is  being  sold  on  the  exquisite  flavor  and  the  perfection  of  being 
made  as  it  should  be  made.  That  is  not  to  say  that  we  are  all  going 
to  get  40  and  50  cents  a  pound,  but  I  do  mean  to  say  that  for  a  long 
time  to  come,  if  you  make  good  butter,  you  are  going  to  get  a  good 
price.  I  said  to  these  gentlemen  from  Chicago  representing  this  asso- 
ciation: "You  remind  me  a  great  deal  of  the  walking  delegates  of  the 
Knights  of  Labor.  You  are  looking  around  for  something  to  do  and 
to  earn  your  salaries,  and  consequently  you  are  taking  up  this  oleo- 
margarine question,  which  in  the  past  has  been,  and,  I  think,  even 
to-day  is,  a  good  friend  of  butter,  and  you  are  agitating  it  and  all  that 
sort  of  thing  to  endeavor  to  show  the  dairy  interests  that  you  are  per- 
forming functions  and  doing  your  work  as  it  should  be  done;  whereas, 
if  you  would  let  the  thing  alone  and  spend  your  time  in  educating  the 
farmers  how  to  make  good  creamery  butter,  you  would  be  doing  a 
noble  work  and  a  grand  work,  and  a  work  that  every  farmer  and  every 
dairyman  through  this  country  would  bless  you  for  in  the  end." 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  the  gentleman  a  question? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Do  you  not  know,  you  being  from  New  York,  that 
it  is  a  part  of  the  work  of  the  department  of  agriculture  of  the  State 
of  New  York  to  do  just  exactly  what  you  have  suggested,  and  do  you 
not  know  that  1!hey  keep  five  or  six  men  continually  employed  in  this 
division  work? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  And  that  department  spends  $20,000  a  year  in  farm- 
ers' institutions  throughout  the  State  in  that  work  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Yes,  sir;  but  the  work  is  not  being  done  fast  enough. 
It  is  going  too  slow. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Do  you  know  that  the  men  representing  the  dairy 
interests  here  are  on  a  salary  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  No.     1  know  some  of  them  are. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Who  among  them  are  on  a  salary  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  do  not  suppose  every  one  of  them  is  doing  it  with- 
out compensation. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  want  to  say  to  you,  as  president  of  the  National  Dairy 
Union,  that  I  never  have  drawn  a  penny  even  for  my  expenses,  and  1 
have  paid  out  over  $1,100  in  the  prosecution  of  this  fight. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Well,  my  remarks  were  made-to  two  or  three  of  these 
gentlemen,  and  I  said  if  they  would  only  spend  their  time  in  the  noble 
work  of  educating  the  farmer,  and  spend  on  that  the  money  that  is 
being  spent  in  fighting  oleomargarine,  they  would  be  doing  a  far  nobler 
and  grander  work. 

Mr.  HURD.  I  have  been  engaged  in  dairy  educational  work  for  thirty 
years  and  I  have  never  heard  of  you  before. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  am  glad  to  make  your  acquaintance. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question,  if  the  gentleman  will 
allow  me. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Certainly. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  gentleman  has  been  plied  with  a  good 


OLEOMARGARINE.  181 

many  questions  and  his  time  has  about  expired.  I  hope  the  questions 
will  be  limited. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  As  another  officer  of  that  organization  he  has  referred 
to  in  connection  with  a  salary,  I  want  to  go  on  record  here  as  stating 
that  I,  as  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Union,  never  have  in  the 
four  years  I  have  been  connected  with  the  association  had  one  cent  of 
salary,  nor  has  there  ever  been  a  salary  attached  to  the  office. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  did  not  mean  that  as  a  slur  in  the  slightest  degree. 
There  was  no  slur  in  my  remark  at  all. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  like  to  be  referred  to  as  a  walking  delegate. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  was  not  referring  to  you  personally. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Just  one  question:  You  say  the  farmers  who  supply 
your  milk  are  interested  in  your  creameries? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Some  of  them  are;  and  that  is  what  I  am  educating 
them  to  do. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  You  really  buy  just  the  cream,  as  I  understand? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  No;  we  buy  both  milk  and  cream.  At  some  of  our 
creameries  we  buy  the  cream  alone  and  at  others  we  buy  the  whole 
thing. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  How  do  you  estimate  what  you  pay  the  farmers  for 
this  milk  and  cream?  How  do  you  get  at  the  value  of  the  milk  and 
cream  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  How  do  }^ou  mean  ? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  How  do  you  fix  the  price  you  pay  them  for  it;  by 
contract,  or  how? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  In  both  ways;  sometimes  by  contract  and  some- 
times otherwise.  That  part  I  am  not  familiar  with,  for  I  do  not 
attend  to  it. 


STATEMENT  OF  WILLIAM  H.  THOMPSON,  PRESIDENT  NATIONAL 
LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE,  CHICAGO. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Whom  do  you  represent,  Mr.  Thompson  ? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  National  Live  Stock  Exchange. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  time  do  you  want? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  just  want  the  time  that  you  think  I  ought  to  have. 
It  is  simply  a  business  proposition,  or  a  business  talk,  rather,  that  I 
propose  to  present. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  would  be  agreeable  to  the  committee  to 
have  you  cover  as  little  time  as  possible  in  making  your  statement. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  hate  to  say  ten  minutes  and  only  occupy 
five. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  give  you  fifteen  minutes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Thank  you. 

I  am  pleased  to  come  before  you  gentlemen  to  place  the  people 
whom  I  represent  on  the  side  of  right  and  justice  and  against  this 
Grout  bill. 

To  explain  who  I  represent  I  may  be  permitted  to  briefly  enlighten 
you  gentlemen  regarding  the  nature,  make-up,  objects,  and  purposes 
of  the  National  Live  Stock  Exchange,  which  I,  as  its  president,  have 
the  honor  to  represent. 

The  National  Live  Stock  Exchange  is  a  commercial  organization 
without  capital  stock,  organized,  not  for  the  transaction  of  business, 


182  OLEOMAEGAKINE. 

but  to  foster,  promote,  and  protect  the  interests  of  the  live-stock  trade  in 
all  of  its  many  branches.  It  is  composed  of  local  live-stock  exchanges 
located  at  the  principal  live-stock  market  centers  of  the  United  States, 
and  counts  among-  its  members  in  the  great  corn  belt  and  beef -produc- 
ing sections  the  local  exchanges  located  at  Sioux  City,  Iowa;  St.  Paul, 
Minn. ;  Omaha,  Nebr. ;  St.  Louis,  Mo. ;  East  St.  Louis,  111. ;  St.  Joseph, 
Mo.;  Fort  Worth,  Tex.;  Chicago,  111.;  Indianapolis,  Ind.;  Pittsburg, 
Pa.;  Louisville,  Ky.,  and  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Each  of  these  local  exchanges  are  composed  of  live-stock  breeders, 
raisers,  feeders,  shippers,  sellers,  slaughterers,  buyers,  bankers,  and 
commission  merchants,  and  some  of  their  employees,  and  have  a  rep- 
resentation in  the  deliberations  of  the  national  exchange  based  on  the 
local  membership  roster,  such  representation  being  fixed  at  1  repre- 
sentative for  every  25  members.  It  is  the  official  mouthpiece  of  the 
live-stock  trade,  and  while  it  aims  to  protect,  foster,  and  promote  the 
interests  of  the  producer  of  livo  stock  on  the  one  hand,  it  is  equally 
as  zealous  in  its  protection  of  the  interests  of  the  consumers  of  live- 
stock products  on  the  other. 

It  is  to  this  organization,  The  National  Live  Stock  Exchange,  that 
all  these  interests  look  for  advice,  assistance,  and  relief  or  protection 
on  any  general  live-stock  question  of  an  interstate  or  international 
character. 

The  Yearbook  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  for 
the  year  1899,  page  818,  gives  the  number  of  cattle  in  the  United 
States  other  than  milch  cows  on  January  1, 1900,  as  27,610,054.  From 
this  number  I  would  deduct  1,610,054  head,  which  I  believe  to  be  a 
fair  estimate  of  that  number  which  are  bulls,  which  yield  little  or  no 
butter  fat.  This  would  leave  26,000,000  steer  cattle,  from  which  I 
would  deduct  12,000,000  head  of  young  cattle,  called  in  the  parlance 
of  the  trade  "  stockers  and  feeders,"  which  would  leave  14,000,000 
head  of  fat  cattle  immediately  affected  and  depreciated  by  this  pro- 
posed legislation.  At  the  rate  of  $3.42  per  head,  provided  the  manu- 
facture of  butter ine  is  prohibited  by  legislation,  this  would  entail  a 
loss  on  the  producers  of  this  country  of  $47, 880, 000. 

We  adopt  those  figures  from  the  manufacturer,  because  we  simply 
consider  him  as  a  manufacturer  or  as  a  creature  of  circumstances,  as 
it  might  be  termed.  He  goes  onto  the  market  and  buys  what  we  term 
the  raw  material — the  bullock — and  if  he  is  enabled  to  manufacture  out 
of  that  bullock  the  different  articles  that  we  know  to  be  in  the  bullock, 
and  make  a  healthful  food  for  the  people,  he  certainly  should  have  a 
right  to  do  so,  and  if  in  doing  so  he  can  pay  this  $3.42  a  head,  the  pro- 
ducer receives  the  benefit.  If  he  is  not  allowed  to  do  it,  he  simply 
goes  onto  the  market  and  buys  those  cattle  at  about  $3.42  a  head  less, 
which  is  most  assuredly  a  total  loss  to  the  producer. 

The  National  Live  Stock  Exchange  has  repeatedly  and  publicly 
solicited  Congress  and  other  legislative  bodies  to  cause  a  critical  exam- 
ination to  be  made  through  a  committee  of  its  own  selection  into  the 
methods  employed  and  ingredients  used  in  the  manufacture  of  this 
wholesome  article  of  diet,  with  the  request  that,  if  after  such  informa- 
tion is  satisfactorily  and  officially  obtained  it  shall  appear  to  any  such 
committee  that  butterine  is  a  legitimate  article  of  commerce  and  a 
wholesome  article  of  diet,  they  shall  in  their  report  recommend  that 
no  coloring  restrictions  or  taxes  be  imposed,  except  such  as  shall 
apply  also  to  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  its  only  competitor,  butter, 


OLEOMABGAKLNE.  183 

thereby  permitting  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine  under  such 
safeguards  as  the  Federal  Government  may  see  fit  to  impose  to  insure 
its  being  sold  on  its  merits. 

In  round  numbers  there  are  75,000,000  people  in  this  country.  I 
believe  a  reasonable  estimate  of  the  number  of  Indians  and  children 
under  a  butter-eating  age  to  be  25,000,000,  which  would  leave  a  popu- 
lation of  50,000,000  outside  of  these  classes  who  are  consumers  of 
butter. 

Of  this  50,000,000  people  at  least  one-half  are  able  to  buy  the  best 
butter  manufactured,  irrespective  of  price,  while  the  other  25,000,000 
are  a  class  of  people  whom  the  butterine  manufacturers  aim  to  reach 
and  benefit,  and  are  a  class  of  our  citizens  known  as  laborers,  not  in 
the  common  acceptance  of  the  term,  but  as  a  class  of  people  following 
a  variety  of  pursuits  at  small  salaries,  and  in  most  cases,  owing  to 
their  dependencies  and  meager  earnings,  compelled  to  go  without  the 
luxuries  of  life. 

It  is  this  class  of  people  whose  interests  need  careful  consideration, 
whose  claims  upon  you  as  their  representatives  are  invariably  backed 
by  justice,  who  are  always  the  greatest  sufferers  b}T  and  the  most 
sensitive  to  inimical  legislation,  who  always  are  the  first  to  respond 
to  and  cheerfully  comply  with  all  just  and  reasonable  laws. 

As  the  representative  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Exchange,  I  also 

Elead  for  a  consideration  of  the  rights  of  this  class  of  our  citizens,  who, 
L-om  the  nature  of  their  surroundings  and  conditions,  are  unable  to 
appear  before  you  in  their  own  behalf. 

They,  who  are  the  principal  consumers  of  butterine,  are  not  asking 
for  any  legislation.  The  producers  and  raisers  of  fat  cattle  are  not 
asking  you  for  any  legislation  in  this  respect. 

Why  should  it  be  any  more  unlawful  to  put  into  butterine,  the  prod- 
uct of  "the  beef  steer,  the  same  coloring  matter  as  is  put  into  butter, 
the  similar  product  of  his  sister,  the  dairy  cow? 

Is  there  any  equity  or  justice  in  such  denial?  Is  it  made  necessary 
by  the  conditions?  Is  it  warranted  upon  any  grounds?  If  it  is,  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  comprehend  it. 

This  kind  of  legislation  is  most  assuredly  the  worst  and  most  vicious 
kind  of  class  legislation,  because  it  is  inaugurated  solely  for  the  pur- 
pose of  destroying  a  competitive  industry  equally  as  important  and 
equally  as  deserving  of  legislative  support  and  protection. 

The~  Grout  bill  represents  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  tax 
one  legitimate  industry  out  of  existence  for  the  benefit  of  another 
industry.  The  ostensible  purpose  is  protection  to  the  consumers  against 
"imitation  butter;'5  but  the  public  has  never  asked  for  such  protec- 
tion. It  does  not  even  object  to  the  coloring  of  butterine  the  same  as 
butter,  so  long  as  the  butterine  is  properly  labeled  and  sold  on  its 
merits.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  consumers,  of  butterine  prefer  to 
have  it  colored,  so  long  as  the  coloring  material  used  is  harmless.  They 
like  butterine  because  of  its  cheapness  and  because  they  are  satisfied 
with  its  purity  and  wholesomeness. 

The  enactment  of  this  bill  will  not  only  deprive  the  consumer  of  a 
healthy  and  nutritious  article  of  food,  but  immediately  it  becomes  a 
law  will  depreciate  the  value  of  the  beef  cattle  and  take  from  the  pro- 
ducers of  this  country  upwards  of  forty -five  millions  of  dollars. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  thank  you  for  granting  me  the  privilege  of 
recording  our  organization  on  the  side  of  right  and  justice  and  in  favor 


184  OLEOM  AEG  AEINE. 

of  the  many,  believing  that  you  will  act  in  this  matter  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  people  as  a  whole. 

This  kind  of  class  legislation,  if  enacted,  would  establish  a  very  bad 
precedent,  one  of  the  worst  kind,  as  it  is  against  a  healthful  article  of 
food. 

A  remark  was  made  by  a  gentleman  before  you  this  morning  that 
this  article  could  be  produced  for  7  cents  a  pound.  That  shows  to  me 
most  conclusively  that  it  comes  within  reach  of  the  laborer,  just  the 
man  we  should  protect. 

Now,  in  regard  to  taxes.  Suppose  there  was  a  tax  of  10  cents  put 
upon  this  butterine,  and  it  should  still  remain  upon  the  market,  who 
pays  the  tax?  The  laboring  man,  of  course.  The  man  of  wealth  buys 
butter.  The  burden  of  the  whole  thing  rests  upon  the  consumer,  who 
is  the  laboring  man.  If  it  is  legislated  out  of  existence,  then  the  bur- 
den or  the  loss  goes  back  to  the  producer. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  May  I  ask  one  question  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Have  you  any  knowledge  what  the  consumer  pays 
for  these  goods? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  can  answer  for  a  consumer.  I  pay  15  cents  a 
pound  for  it. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  In  our  State  it  never  has  been  sold,  taking  it  gen- 
erally— there  may  be  isolated  cases — cheaper  than  butter.  For  the 
last  fifteen  years,  as  far  as  I  know,  and  I  have  been  looking  after  it,  I 
myself  bought  it  for  butter  in  the  city  of  Troy  and  paid  22  cents  a 
pound,  and  the  butter  right  opposite  it  was  22  cents  a  pound.  It  is 
sold  to  consumers  for  butter  and  at  butter  prices.  There  is  no  excep- 
tion to  it  in  the  State  of  New  York. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  answer  for  one  consumer,  I 
will  say  that  I  pay  15  cents  a  pound  for  it  for  use  on  my  table.  I  do 
it  for  this  reason,  that  to  get  the  best  butter,  which  at  times  seems 
almost  impossible,  I  would  have  to  pay  30  cents  a  pound,  to  go  to  our 
grocer  and  get  the  butter,  as  they  term  it.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  as 
though  it  was  near  as  good  as  the  butterine,  and  I  would  have  to  pay 
from  20  to  25  and  26  cents  for  it. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  In  our  State  that  is  just  what  has  been  done  right 
along.  It  is  sold  for  butter  at  butter  prices. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  am  speaking  of  Chicago. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  buy  the  best  grade  of  butterine  at  15  cents  ? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  know,  sir,  what  they  call  the  best  grade. 
I  buy  as  good  a  grade  as  I  can  get  and  pay  15  cents  for  it. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Do  }^ou  call  for  butterine  when  you  go  to  the  store? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  buy  it  at  the  store.  I  buy  it  at  the  manu- 
facturer's. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Do  you  call  for  butterine  ? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  call  for  butterine. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  finished,  Mr.  Thompson  ? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes;  unless  there  are  some  other  questions.  I  have 
a  memorial  here  which  is  rather  lengthy,  and  I  would  like  to  attach  it 
to  my  remarks. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  file  it,  and  it  will  be  printed  with 
your  remarks. 

The  memorial  referred  to  is  as  follows: 


OLEOMARGARINE.  185 

THE  NATIONAL  LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE, 

OFFICE  OF  THE  SECRETARY, 

Union  Stock  Yards,  Chicago,  III. ,  December  21,  1900. 

THE  HONORABLE  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES: 

Your  orator,  The  National  Live  Stock  Exchange,  respectfully  rep- 
resents unto  your  honorable  body  that  it  is  an  association  composed  of 
local  live-stock  exchanges  located  at  all  the  principal  live-stock  centers 
throughout  the  country,  having  a  roster  of  over  two  thousand  mem- 
bers actively  engaged  in  breeding,  raising,  feeding,  shipping,  buying, 
selling,  and  slaughtering  all  kinds  of  live  stock;  was  organized,  among 
other  things,  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  best  interests  of  the 
live-stock  industry  as  a  whole,  jealously  guarding  the  interests  of  the 
producer  and  consumer  alike,  and  is  the  recognized  and  official  mouth- 
piece of  the  live-stock  industry  on  all  questions  of  an  interstate  or 
international  character,  especially  when  the  interests  of  the  producer 
or  consumer  are  in  any  way  affected. 

Your  orator  in  behalf  of  its  constituency  desires  to  enter  its  emphatic 
protest  against  the  enactment  of  what  is  commonly  known  as  the 
Grout  bill,  and  in  support  of  its  protest  desires  to  record  a  few  of  the 
many  reasons  in  support  of  its  contention. 

This  measure  is  a  species  of  class  legislation  of  the  most  dangerous 
kind,  calculated  to  build  up  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  another 
equally  as  important.  It  seeks  to  impose  an  unjust,  uncalled  for,  and 
unwarranted  burden  upon  one  of  the  principal  commercial  industries  of 
the  country  for  the  purpose  of  prohibiting  its  manufacture,  thereby 
destroying  competition,  as  the  manufacturers  can  not  assume  the  addi- 
tional burden  sought  to  be  imposed  by  this  measure  and  sell  their 
product  in  competition  with  butter.  The  enactment  of  this  measure 
would  throttle  competition,  render  useless  the  immense  establishments 
erected  at  great  expense  for  the  manufacture  of  butterine,  deprive 
thousands  of  employees  of  the  opportunity  to  gain  a  livelihood,  and 
deny  the  people,  and  especially  the  workingmen  and  their  dependents 
of  a  wholesome  article  of  diet. 

In  butterine  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  consumers  of  this  coun- 
try, especially  the  working  classes,  have  a  wholesome,  nutritious,  and 
satisfactory  article  of  diet,  which  before  its  advent  they  were  obliged, 
owing  to  the  high  price  of  butter  and  their  limited  means,  to  go 
without. 

The  ''butter  fat"  of  an  average  beef  animal  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing butterine  is  worth  $3  per  head  more  than  it  was  before  the  advent 
of  butterine,  when  the  same  had  to  be  used  for  tallow,  which  increased 
value  of  the  beef  steer  has  been  added  to  the  market  value  of  the 
animal,  and  consequently  to  the  profit  of  the  producer. 

To  legislate  this  article  of  commerce  out  of  existence,  as  the  pas- 
sage of  this  law  would  surely  do,  would  compel  slaughterers  to  use 
this  fat  for  tallow,  and  depreciate  the  market  value  of  the  beef  cattle 
$3  per  head,  which  would  entail  a  loss  on  the  producers  of  this  coun- 
try of  millions  of  dollars. 

Your  orator  submits  that  it  is  manifestly  unjust,  unreasonable,  and 
unwarranted  to  deny  the  manufacturers  of  the  product  of  the  beef 
steer  the  same  privileges  in  regard  to  the  use  of  coloring  matter  that 
are  accorded  the  manufacturers  of  the  product  of  the  dairy. 

The  rights  and  privileges  of  the  producers  of  beef  cattle  should  be 


186  OLEOMARGARINE. 

as  well  respected  as  those  of  others,  and  as  they  are  the  benficiaries  in 
the  manufacture  of  this  wholesome  article  of  food,  they  should  not 
be  burdened  with  unnecessary  special  taxes  or  needless  restrictions  in 
the  manufacture  of  this  product,  other  than  is  absolutely  necessary  for 
the  support  of  the  Government  and  the  proper  governmental  regula- 
tions surrounding  the  handling  of  same. 

This  product  of  the  "beef  steer"  should  receive  at  the  hands  of 
Congress  no  greater  exactions  than  those  imposed  upon  competing 
food  products.  It  is  already  surrounded  by  numerous  safeguards, 
which  Congress  in  its  wisdom  has  seen  fit  to  provide,  stipulating  severe 
punishment  for  selling  same  under  misrepresentation  as  to  its  com- 
position. It  has  by  experience  proven  to  be  just  what  a  large  majority 
of  the  people  of  this  country  want,  and  in  behalf  of  the  producers 
and  consumers  of  this  great  country  we  do  solemnly  protest  against 
the  enactment  of  legislation  calculated  to  ruin  a  great  industry,  and 
to  deprive  not  only  the  working  classes,  but  many  others,  of  a  cheap, 
wholesome,  nutritious,  and  acceptable  article  of  food. 

THE   EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE 

NATIONAL  LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE, 
By  W.  H.  THOMPSON,  President. 

Attest: 

C.  W.  BAKER,  Secretary. 


STATEMENT    OF    HENRY  C.   PIRRUNG,   GENERAL    MANAGER   OF 
THE  CAPITAL  CITY  DAIRY  COMPANY,  COLUMBUS,  OHIO. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Where  are  you  from? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  From  Columbus,  Ohio.  I  am  the  general  manager  of 
the  Capital  City  Dairy  Company  and  the  general  manager  of  the  Colum- 
bus Cream  and  Milk  Company,  producers  of  creamery  butter  and  deal- 
ers in  milk  and  cream. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  I  am 
present  to-day  to  defend  the  butterine  interests  in  the  capacity  of  a 
manufacturer,  being  general  manager  of  the  Capital  City  Dairy  Com- 
pany, of  Columbus,  Ohio,  makers  of  high-grade  butterine. 

It  has  been  suggested  to  me  to  be  as  brief  as  possible  in  my  state- 
ment, and  I  will  endeavor,  therefore,  to  present  the  matter  in  as  con- 
cise a  form  as  possible,  and  yet  as  terse  as  I  hope  will  meet  the  con- 
venience of  you  gentlemen. 

First  of  all,  I  desire  to  take  up  the  subject  of  so-called  "  natural" 
butter.  In  my  humble  opinion,  the  term  "  natural"  is  an  idiosyncrasy, 
fostered  and  fathered  by  the  creamery  and  dairy  butter  churners  and 
by  the  proprietors  and  editors  of  dairy  papers,  for  the  purpose  of 
alluring,  perhaps,  more  particularly  the  illiterate  into  the  belief  that 
butter  is  absolutely  a  product  given  to  us  in  its  entirety  and  finished 
shape  by  nature.  I,  however,  have  never  been  able  to  find  a  cow,  no 
matter  of  what  breed,  color,  or  size,  that  gives  to  us  this  much-talked- 
of  product,  ' '  natural "  butter.  Nor  have  I  been  able  to  find  any  tree, 
shrub,  or  plant  upon  which  grows  this  much-talked-of  "natural"  but- 
ter. We,  however,  do  know  that  butter  is  churned  from  natural  prod- 
ucts, chiefly  the  milk  of  the  cow,  which  milk  undergoes  a  process  of 
manufacture  conducted  through  a  system  of  mechanical  hand  or  steam- 


OLEOMARGARINE.  187 

power  apparatus,  to  which  is  customarily  added,  especially  in  this 
country,  a  mineral  matter  called  salt,  and  either  a  mineral  or  vegetable 
compound  commonly  called  "butter  color."  After  this  cow's  milk 
has  undergone  a  mechanical  process  for  separating  the  cream  or  fat 
out  of  it,  and  which  cream  is  then  set  aside  for  ripening,  to  a  suitable 
condition  of  acidity,  it  is  now  ready  to  be  put  into  a  mechanical  con- 
trivance, either  of  a  rounder  square  pattern,  commonly  called  a  churn, 
in  which  receptacle  it  undergoes  a  process  of  congelation,  after  which 
it  is  put  upon  another  mechanical  device,  operated  either  by  hand  or 
steam  power,  for  the  purpose  of  introducing  the  salt,  and  which  is 
commonly  known  as  a  butter-salter.  The  color  is  sometimes  added  on 
this  salter,  but  more  generally  is  the  color  added  in  the  churn.  After 
these  various  processes  we  find  that  we  have  a  nice  golden  yellow 
product,  resembling,  perhaps,  more  a  mass  of  deep  yellow  gold  than 
anything  else,  but  surely  have  a  product  that  does  not  look  one  par- 
ticle like  the  milk  it  was  made  from,  either  in  texture,  form,  or  color, 
and  wv  certainly  dare  not  class  this  article  under  any  other  head  than 
a  manufactured  product.  In  my  opinion  we  would  have  just  as  much 
right  to  call  apple,  peach,  or  quince  butter  "  natural"  butter,  although 
I  think  we  will  all  agree  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  be  so  named, 
because  they  are  artificially  made  and  compounded  or  manufactured 
from  ; ;  natural "  products  only. 

From  what  and  how  is  butterine  made  ?  It  has  been  stated  before 
the  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  this  Congress,  and 
no  doubt  before  this  committee,  of  what  it  is  composed;  so  I  will  not 
dwell  upon  that,  but  simply  state  that  the  ingredients  of  butterine  are 
mixed  or  churned  by  hand  or  steam  power  in  a  manner  similar  yet 
decidedly  distinct  from  the  process  used  for  making  butter.  There  is 
also  introduced  into  butterine  salt  and  a  harmless  coloring  matter.  We 
have  therefore  two  food  products  manufactured,  or  churned,  as  it  is 
more  commonly  called,  and  what  do  we  find?  In  the  language  of  Pro- 
fessor Burner,  formerly  dean  of  the  department  of  chemistry  in  the 
Ohio  Medical  University,  and  chemist  for  the  Ohio  food  and  dairy 
department — we  can  best  quote  the  finding  in  his  own  language,  as 
follows:  "After  extracting  from  butter  all  mineral  matter,  water,  etc., 
there  remains  a  residue  of  100  per  cent  fat.  After  treating  butterine 
in  the  same  manner  I  arrived  at  the  same  result  of  having  a  residue  of 
100  per  cent  fat.  An  examination  with  the  microscope  of  the  different 
fats  shows  them  to  be  very  nearly  identical,  so  much  so  that  no  accu- 
rate determination  could  be  depended  upon  by  this  instrument.  After 
a  chemical  analysis  I  find  that  they  are  still  very  nearly  identical,  except 
that  the  butterine  contained  less  of  the  volatile  acid." 

Prof.  Henry  A.  Weber,  of  the  department  of  chemistry  of  the  Ohio 
State  University,  also  chemist  for  the  Ohio  food  and  dairy  department, 
testified  under  oath  that  there  was  no  fat  present  in  the  sample  of  but- 
terine he  analyzed  which  would  not  be  present  or  might  not  be  present 
in  butter,  nor  was  there  any  fat  absent  in  butterine  which  you  would 
find  in  butter;  also  testified  that  in  neither  case  is  there  a  chemical 
combination,  but  that  in  both  cases  it  is  a  mixture,  and  that  the  only 
difference  between  butter  and  butterine  lies  in  the  small  difference  of 
butyrin. 

I  could  go  on  and  give  you  innumerable  quotations  from  learned  men, 
unbiased  and  unprejudiced,  from  various  parts  of  the  United  States, 
fully  in  accord,  and  perhaps  even  stronger  in  favor  of  butterine  than 


188  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  two  previously  quoted,  from  which  opinions  we  can  only  derive 
that  butter  and  butterine  are  identical,  save  in  the  difference  of  the 
percentage  of  butyric  acid  and  the  difference  in  the  process  of  manu- 
facture. The  rancidity  which  makes  butter  so  objectionable  to  taste 
and  smell  comes  from  the  liberation  of  butyric  acid,  and  thereby  is 
explained  the  reason  why  butterine  never  gets  rancid,  because  it  con- 
tains only  a  small  percentage  of  this  butyrin,  wholly  insufficient  to 
cause  any  objectionable  odor.  Having  thoroughly  explained  that  both 
butter  and  butterine  are  artificially  made  food  products,  and  that  the 
ingredients  of  both  compounds  are  extracts  from  the  animal  provided 
by  nature,  and  that  they  are  nearly  identical  in  every  particular,  we 
come  to  the  all-important  subject  of  "coloring." 

We  need  not  go  back  fifteen  or  twenty-five  years  to  remember  that 
dairy  butter  was  mostly  white,  or  of  a  very  light  yellow,  and  very 
rarely,  if  ever,  seen  in  that  golden-yellow  color  so  prominent  and 
characteristic  of  butter  to-day.  Let  us  take  up  the  subject  of  the  color 
of  dairy  butter  to-day — with  all  the  advanced  ideas  of  dairying,  of 
making,  and  with  all  the  advanced  ideas  of  keeping,  caring,  and  feed- 
ing the  cow — and  what  is  the  result?  We  find  that  the  color  of  dairy 
butter  is  as  varied  to-day,  and  perhaps  more  so,  on  account  of  the  inter- 
breeding of  cattle,  uncommon  and  perhaps  not  known  twenty-five  years 
ago.  We  also  find  that  there  is  a  difference  in  color  of  butter  from 
nearly  each  different  herd  of  dairy  cattle,  conditioned  upon  the  care 
and  the  feeding  of  the  cattle,  and  these  different  colors  are  again  mul- 
tiplied by  the  different  seasons'  changes  affecting  the  color  of  butter 
which  is  churned  free  from  artificial  coloration.  This  proves  unde- 
niably and  indisputably  that  "nature"  has  made  no  changes  in  the 
milk-giving  properties  of  her  cow,  and  therefore  we  must  in  all  reason 
firmly  believe  that  the  universal  golden  color  of  butter  is  due  solely 
and  alone  to  the  introduction  of  an  artificial  ingredient  called  "color- 
ing." I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  not  all  butter  is  col- 
ored artificially,  because  there  are  a  number  of  conditions  from  artificial 
feeding  and  caring  for  the  cattle  and  certain  seasons  of  the  year  during 
which  different  shades  of  yellow  butter  can  be  produced. 

In  my  opinion  good  fresh  butter  is  better  suited  as  an  article  of  food 
when  it  is  colored  with  a  harmless  coloring  matter,  yet  one  is  very  apt 
to  be  deceived  in  the  purchase  of  colored  butter,  because  the  introduc- 
tion of  coloring  matter,  which  is  allowed  to  be  introduced  and  is  most 
frequently  used  in  inferior  makes  of  butter,  is  calculated  to  deceive 
even  the  most  wary.  In  this  lies  the  greatest  danger,  not  only  in  the 
deception  of  the  quality,  but  also  in  the  price  of  butter,  because  I  do 
not  believe  that  any  person  using  only  the  sense  of  sight  can  distinguish 
rancid  from  fresh  butter  which  is  colored  alike.  I  will  not  attempt  to 
state  that  the  introduction  of  coloring  in  butter  should  be  prohibited. 
On  the  contrary,  in  my  humble  opinion  the  coloring  of  butter  should 
be  allowed,  because  even  the  school  child  who  has  passed  the  primary 
grade  will  define  the  color  of  butter  as  "yellow,"  and  every  adult 
expects  at  this  advanced  age  to  have  the  product  served  to  him  "yel- 
low." Now,  why  should  not  all  of  the  foregoing  be  applicable  to  this 
new  food  product  legislatively  called  "oleomargarine,"  and  why  should 
not  every  argument  in  favor  of  colored  butter  be  applied  to  butterine? 
Butterine  is  as  decidedly  a  farm  product  as  butter,  because  there  is 
^absolutely  no  ingredient  in  its  composition  that  does  not  come  from 


I 


OLEOMARGARINE.  189 

the  farm,  and  being  identical  in  their  nature  and  composition  they 
should  enjoy  the  same  relative  privileges  for  their  appearance. 

There  must  be  a  reason  for  manufacturers  of  butter  coloring  their 
product,  and  as  I  am  a  manufacturer  of  butter  also,  owning  four  large 
creameries  in  Ohio,  I  think  that  I  am  entitled  to  give  nry  opinion  for 
the  using  of  such  coloring  matter,  and  which,  in  my  vast  experience, 
has  not  been  disputed,  and  that  is  that  coloring  is  added  to  the  butter 
made  in  our  creameries  at  all  seasons  of  the  year  to  give  it,  first,  a 
uniform  color;  second,  to  make  it  more  marketable,  and  third^  to 
enhance  its  value  as  a  food  product.  Does  not  this  same  reasoning 
hold  good  for  the  coloring  of  butterine,  and  should  not  the  manufac- 
turers of  butterine  enjoy  the  same  privileges  as  those  enjoyed  by  their 
competitors.  I  am  assuming  in  my  argument  that  there  has  been 
nothing  said  before  the  House  committee  hearing  this  testimony,  nor 
have  I  heard  that  anything  has  been  said  before  this  committee  against 
the  healthfulness  of  either  butter  or  butterine,  and  desire  it  to  be 
understood  that  when  making  comparisons  between  butter  and  butter- 
ine I  am  describing  the  fresh  products  of  both.  The  subject  of  col- 
oring butterine  is  not  a  new  one,  nor  have  our  butter  competitors 
confined  themselves  to  "yellow"  color,  for  they  have  gone  so  far  as 
to  usurp  and  coerce  political  influence  to  the  extent  of  having  several 
State  laws  passed  actually  prescribing  a  "pink"  coloring  for  butterine. 
This,  however,  has  been  a  significant  failure,  precipitating  upon  their 
heads  the  severest  condemnation,  not  only  from  the  consumers  of  but- 
terine, but  from  the  butter-makers'  liberal-minded  constituency.  It 
is  an  accepted  theory  that  there  must  be  a  reason  for  everything,  but 
following  the  old  adage  that  "it  takes  an  exception  to  prove  a  rule," 
there  has  been  no  reason  given  by  the  advocates  of  these  "pink"  laws 
for  the  enactment  of  such  a  measure.  We  therefore  are  privileged 
to  draw  our  own  conclusions. 

First  and  foremost,  it  appears  that  they  decided  that  by  prescribing 
a  "pink"  color  the  product  would  be  so  disguised  that  not  even  the 
most  suspicious  would  ever  entertain  the  idea  it  was  butterine,  and 
hence  its  sale  would  be  stopped  from  lack  of  identification,  or,  even  if 
identified,  a  refusal  to  eat  such  a  discolored  product  as  prescribed  by 
these  "pink"  laws  would  follow.  I  may  state,  to  the  credit  of  the 
attempting  destructors  of  this  new  food  product,  that  they  introduced 
these  "discoloring"  laws  in  only  a  very  few  States,  becoming  quickly 
and  painfully  aware  that  the  general  public  would  not  countenance 
such  a  glaring  destruction  of  an  industry  and  a  desirable  food  product 
in  such  an  insincere  and  unpardonably  outrageous  manner.  Failing  in 
their  attempt  to  compel  manufacturers  of  butterine  to  discolor  their 
product  with  a  "pink"  coloring  matter  they  are  now  attempting  (and 
somewhat  successfully,  too)  the  "  forbidding"  the  use  of  a  "  yellow" 
coloring  matter,  and  the  same  coloring  matter  that  they  testify  is  used 
in  their  product,  called  butter.  You  will  therefore  readily  perceive 
the  reason  for  their  astounding  acrobatic  performance  in  the  guise  of 
legislation,  turning  from  the  outrageous  enactment  of  actually  pre- 
scribing a  "pink"  discoloration  to  the  enactment  of  laws  prohibiting 
the  use  of  any  coloring  matter.  They  have  played  their  part  splen- 
didly and  somersaulting  was  well  suited,  because  of  the  very  impor- 
tant fact  that  by  stopping  the  introduction  of  yellow  coloring  matter 
in  butterine  it  would  leave  this  product  in  its  natural  color  of  nearly 


190  OLEOMARGARINE. 

white,  and  which  color  would  be  quite  as  repugnant  and  as  offensive  to 
sight  in  this  twentieth  century  of  culture  and  science  as  the  prescribed 
introduction  of  a  "pink"  color,  and  would  result  in  a  positive  and 
absolute  refusal  of  the  consumer  to  purchase  butterine  in  a  "white" 
color  at  any  price.  In  order  to  prove  that  my  reasoning  comes  from 
the  most  learned  source,  I  would  beg  the  privilege  of  quoting  from 
Justice  Peckham,  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  in  his  decision 
in  the  case  of  Collins  v.  The  State  of  New  Hampshire,  which  State  had 
enacted  one  of  the  now  invalid  "pink"  color  laws: 

He  says:  "Although  under  the  wording  of  this  statute  the  importer 
is  permitted  to  sell  oleomargarine  freely  and  to  any  extent,  provided 
he  colors  it  'pink,'  yet  the  permission  to  sell,  when  accompanied  by 
the  imposition  of  a  condition,  which,  if  complied  with,  will  effectually 
prevent  any  sale,  amounts  in  law  to  a  prohibition. 

"If  this  provision  for  coloring  the  article  were  a  legal  condition,  a 
legislature  could  not  be  limited  to  'pink'  in  its  choice  of  colors.  The 
legislative  fancy  or  taste  would  be  boundless.  It  might  equally  as  well 
provide  that  it  should  be  colored  blue,  or  red,  or  black.  Nor  do  we 
see  that  it  would  be  limited  to  the  use  of  coloring  matter.  It  might, 
instead  of  that,  provide  that  the  article  should  only  be  sold  if  mixed 
with  some  other  article,  which,  while  not  deleterious  to  health,  would 
nevertheless  give  out  a  most  offensive  smell.  If  the  legislature  has  the 
power  to  direct  that  the  article  shall  be  colored  'pink,'  which  can  only 
be  accomplished  by  the  use  of  some  foreign  substance  that  will  have 
that  effect,  we  do  not  know  upon  what  principle  it  should  be  confined 
to  discoloration,  or  why  a  provision  for  an  offensive  odor  would  not  be 
just  as  valid  as  one  prescribing  the  particular  color.  The  truth  is, 
however,  as  we  have  above  stated,  the  statute  in  its  necessary  effect 
is  prohibitory,  and,  therefore,  upon  the  principle  recognized  in  the 
Pennsylvania  cases,  it  is  invalid." 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  will  note  from  the  above  abstract  of  Justice 
Peckham's  decision  that  he  says  a  legislature  can  not  be  limited  to 
"pink"  in  its  choice  of  colors,  and  that  the  legislative  fancy  would  be 
boundless.  He  further  states  the  legislature  might  equally  as  well 
provide  that  it  should  be  colored  blue  or  red  or  black,  and  he  might 
have  gone  on  and  said  "white,"  for  it  is  the  very  commonest  knowledge 
that  "white"  is  one  of  the  most  distinctive  colors  known  in  this  age, 
and  has  been  from  time  immemorial.  Justice  Peckham  confined  him- 
self to  the  mention  of  only  three  colors,  because  we  all  know  that  to 
have  recited  the  entire  list  of  colors  would  have  filled  a  book  nearly  the 
size  of  an  encyclopedia.  We  must,  therefore,  presume  that  by  his 
recitation  of  onlv  three  colors  he  meant  to  convey,  and  in  fact  does  say, 
that  the  legislative  fancy  or  taste  for  colors  would  be  boundless,  and  it 
is  only  reasonable  to  presume  that  he  meant  to  include  a  "white"  color 
as  being  equally  as  repugnant  to  the  taste  of  the  consumer  as  "pink," 
"blue,"  "red,"  or  "black."  You  can  readily  see,  therefore,  why  the 
astounding  acrobatic  performance  of  the  dairy  interests  is  necessary, 
and  I  can  plainly  see  concealed  in  all  of  this  undue  "yellow"  color  agi- 
tation that  a  no  plainer  expose  of  their  legerdemain  could  be  given 
than  in  the  words  of  Justice  Peckham,  and  I  do  not  think  that  anj^one 
will  attempt  to  say  that  they  have  been  a  particle  overdrawn.  It  is  as 
plain  as  daylight  that  the  attempted  legislation  forbidding  the  use  of 
yellow  coloring  is  only  a  subterfuge  to  overcome  the  invalid  law  pre- 
scribing a  "pink"  discoloration,  Since  we  are  on  the  subject  of  opin- 


OLEOMARGARINE.  191 

ions  from  learned  men  of  the  Supreme  Bench  of  the  United  States,  it 
might  not  be  irrelevant  herewith  to  quote  an  opinion  from  Chief  Jus- 
tice Fuller  in  the  case  of  Plumley  v.  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts, 
in  which,  among  other  things,  he  says: 

' '  Upon  this  record  oleomargarine  is  conceded  to  be  a  wholesome, 
palatable,  and  nutritious  article  of  food,  in  no  way  deleterious  to  the 
public  health  or  welfare.  It  is  of  the  natural  color  of  butter,  and  looks 
like  butter,  and  is  often  colored,  as  butter  is,  by  harmless  ingredients — 
a  deeper  yellow — to  render  it  more  attractive  to  consumers.  The 
assumption  that  it  is  thus  colored  to  make  it  appear  a  different  article 
generically  than  it  is  has  no  legal  basis  to  rest  on." 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  the  first  case  appearing  before  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  the  court  was  nearly  a  unit  against  butter- 
ine,  because  this  article  at  that  time  was  not  so  well  known  as  at 
present,  but  quite  as  steadily  as  this  product  ingratiated  itself  com- 
mercially the  court  in  its  opinions  more  equally  divided  itself,  until 
only  recently  it  gave  its  opinion  almost  unanimously  in  favor  of  butter- 
ine;  and  this  further  proves,  through  these  learned  men,  that  the 
product  is  not  such  a  menace  to  public  health  or  commerce  as  the  dairy 
or  creamery  interests  would  have  us  believe.  I  desire  to  take  up  a 
few  of  the  charges  by  the  creamerymen  against  this  product,  the  most 
prominent  one  being  that  when  butterine  is  colored  it  is  done  so  to 
imitate  "yellow  butter."  I  do  not  believe  that  any  one  person  in  the 
world  to-day  possesses  the  exact  knowledge  of  the  number  of  "yel- 
low" colors  that  could  be  given  to  butter  by  any  one  coloring  matter, 
and  therefore  say,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  there  is  no  one 
capable  of  giving  the  number  of  shades  of  yellow  colors  that  can  be 
produced  in  butter  with  the  numerous  makes  of  mineral  and  vegetable 
colors  on  the  markets  to-day. 

We  all  know  that  there  are  very  light  yellows,  canary  yellows,  straw 
yellows,  light  yellows,  medium  yellows,  light  and  dark  golden  yellows, 
sunflower  yellows,  orange  yellows,  deep  yellows  and,  in  fact,  yellows 
indescribable  from  the  almost  indistinguishable  faint  yellow  to  the  most 
intense  pumpkin  yellow.  They  say  we  color  our  product  to  resemble 
butter.  I,  for  one,  would  like  to  have  either  the  adherents  of  this 
Grout  bill  or  Congress  to  decide  what  yellow  we  are  imitating.  It 
just  occurs  to  me  that  if  these  dairy  exhorters  were  really  sincere  in 
their  motives  to  have  butter  and  butterine  distinct  in  color,  and  in  con- 
nection therewith  desire  to  extend  the  equity  due  their  fellow  man,  they 
would  ask  Congress  to  regulate  and  specify  a  deep,  rich,  golden  yellow 
for  dairy  and  creamery  butter,  and  specify  for  the  butterine  maker  a 
light  straw  yellow  for  his  product,  which,  in  my  judgment,  would 
thoroughly  inform  the  consumer  of  what  he  is  purchasing.  Or,  in 
order  not  to  be  a  bit  choice  in  the  matter,  let  the  regulation  of  colors 
be  reversed  if  it  should  please  the  butter  makers.  Other  adherents  of 
this  Grout  bill  have  said  that  we  make  and  color  our  butterine  in 
"semblance  of  butter,"  which  in  my  opinion  is  still  more  indefinable, 
because  it  not  only  takes  in  all  of  the  ' '  yellow "  colors  of  butter  but 
the  white  and  various  other  hues  of  butter  which  I  will  not  even  begin 
to  define,  but  all  of  which  illustrates  how  ridiculous  these  charges 
appear  to  the  most  ordinary  observer. 

To  those  who  are  interested  in  this  controversy  there  can  be  but 
one  conclusion,  that  either  the  adherents  of  this  bill  do  not  know  what 
they  want,  or  want  a  spread-eagle  law  that  amounts  to  actual  prohibition, 


192  OLEOMARGARINE. 

To  prove  that  there  is  less  gained  b}^  coloring  butterine  than  butter  we 
will  take  some  average  prices  of  the  different  products  for  the  summer 
and  winter  months,  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  both  but- 
ter and  butterine  are  colored  during  all  seasons  of  the  year.  During 
the  grass  or  summer  months  of  the  year  butter  retails  at  from  15  to 
20  cents  per  pound,  and  butterine  at  from  15  to  17i  cents  per  pound. 
During  the  winter  months  butterine  retails  at  about  20  cents  per 
pound,  while  we  all  know  that  butter  brings  an  average  price  of  about 
27i  cents  per  pound.  By  this  comparison  you  will  note  that  butter- 
ine advances  about  2£  cents  per  pound  during  the  winter  season,  and 
butter  about  7i  cents  per  pound,  and  that  both  products  are  admitted 
to  be  colored.  Now,  then,  I  would  ask,  What  price  butter  would  bring 
in  the  winter  time  if  it  was  sold  in  its  natural  color  of  white  ?  I  will 
answer  this  myself  by  stating  that  the  average  price  would  be  some- 
thing like  10  to  15  cents  per  pound,  and  could  then  only  be  sold  for 
cooking  or  baking  purposes.  You  will  therefore  note  by  the  above 
illustration,  and  I  think  that  the  prices  are  fairly  given,  that  there  is 
not  such  a  fearful  fraud  committed  in  coloring  butterine  as  some  of 
the  dairy  papers  would  have  their  readers  believe,  and  indeed  the  shoe 
could  be  put  on  the  other  foot  if  the  Elgin  butter  prices  of  last  winter 
are  taken  into  account. 

Creamery  butter  makers  will  remember  very  distinctly  that  the  Elgin 
Board  of  Trade  last  winter  steadily  advanced  the  price  of  butter  to  29 
cents  per  pound  wholesale,  and  we  all  know  that  these  prices  are  made 
each  Monday  on  the  Elgin  board  and  are  supposed  to  hold  good  for  the 
remainder  of  the  week.  A  great  many  people  predicted  that  this  high 
price  of  creamery  butter  was  fictitious,  and  their  prediction  was  veri- 
fied when  the  next  meeting  of  the  board  reduced  the  price  from  29 
cents  to  24  cents  per  pound,  and  which,  as  far  as  we  know,  is  the 
greatest  drop  that  ever  occurred  in  the  Elgin  Board  of  Trade  in  one 
week's  time.  We  can  only  conjecture  what  would  have  been  the  price 
of  butter  on  the  Elgin  Board  of  Trade  last  year  if  there  had  been  a 
law  forbidding  the  use  of  yellow  coloring,  but  we  can  be  reasonably 
positive  that  the  price  would  not  have  been  29  cents  per  pound. 
Another  absurd  charge  made  through  the  dairy  journals  is  that  but- 
terine is  sold  for  butter  and  that  if  the  consumers  really  knew  that  they 
were  eating  butterine  that  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine  would 
almost  amount  to  nothing.  To  this  charge  we  can  only  refer  our  com- 
petitors to  the  statement  of  the  honorable  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Revenue,  in  which  he  says  that  less  than  3  per  cent  of  butterine  was 
sold  contrary  to  law.  Now,  then,  who  eats  the  other  97  per  cent? 
Close  observation  on  this  point  has  divided  the  consumers  of  butterine 
into  two  distinct  classes,  the  first  being  those  who  consume  it  from 
choice  and  who  are  familiar  with  its  composition,  manufacture,  etc., 
and  the  other  class  are  those  who  consume  it  from  necessity,  on  account 
of  the  reduced  price  at  which  it  can  be  purchased,  and  close  observa- 
tion further  proves  that  a  great  part  of  the  former  class  is  made  up 
from  the  latter,  because  of  the  cultivation  of  the  taste  for  the  product 
which  is  encouraged  by  continuous  consumption. 

Friends  of  the  Grout  bill  say  that  the  sale  of  butterine  is  growing  to 
an  alarming  extent.  That,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  best  indorsement  that 
the  product  is  meeting  favorably  not  only  with  the  pocketbook  but 
with  the  taste  of  the  consumer.  Of  course,  the  sale  of  butterine  is 
growing  every  year,  and  it  will  ever  continue  to  do  so.  Because  of  its 


OLEOMARGARINE.  193 

very  composition  and  manufacture,  it  is  an  article  that  commends 
itself  to  the  most  fastidious  person  and  especially  to  the  literate,  who 
positively  know  that  its  manufacture  is  conducted  under  the  rigid 
supervision  of  the  most  punctilious  revenue  officials  and,  in  most 
States,  under  the  prejudiced  and  biased  supervision  of  food  and  dairy 
departments.  The  best  indorsement  for  the  purity  of  butterine  is  the 
fact  that  Government  and  State  analytical  experts  have  never  found  a 
flaw  in  its  ingredients  or  its  manufacture;  otherwise  they  would  have 
been  compelled,  and  in  State  cases  would  have  been  glad,  to  wipe  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine  out  of  existence  under  the  now 
oppressive  and  unreasonable  laws. 

The  adherents  of  the  Grout  bill  make  the  bold  and  astounding  an- 
nouncement that  there  is  nothing  in  this  bill  to  prevent  the  sale  of 
uncolored  butterine,  and  even  refer  with  great  pride  to  their  magna- 
nimity in  the  reduction  of  the  present  tax  of  2  cents  per  pound  to  one- 
fourth  cent  per  pound  on  butterine  free  from  coloring  matter.  This 
astounding  declaration  either  precedes  or  succeeds  a  statement  that 
butterine  is  unfit  for  human  food.  I  therefore  would  ask  if  it  is  their 
acknowledgment  that  this  Congress  should  be  asked  to  encourage  the 
sale  of  uncolored  butterine  by  a  reduction  of  the  present  tax,  and 
should  by  an  exorbitant  tax  prohibit  its  sale  simply  because  it  is  col- 
ored with  a  harmless  coloring  matter,  and  such  a  coloring  matter  as 
the  butter  makers  admit  using  in  their  product.  It  is  certainly  the 
height  of  inconsistency  to  ask  Congress  to  encourage  the  sale  of  a 
product  which  they  claim  unfit  for  human  consumption.  Everyone 
knows  that  color  in  butter  and  butterine  is  a  nutritive  ingredient, 
adding  neither  flavor,  texture,  nor  weight,  but  is  used  in  very  minute 
quantities,  and  therefore  can  not  possibly  make  colored  butterine  any 
more  unhealthy  than  colored  butter.  I  can  not,  therefore,  understand 
the  logic  of  such  attempted  legislation,  which  presumably  intends  to 
increase  the  sale  of  uncolored  butterine  at  a  lower  rate  of  taxation  and 
intends  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  colored  butterine  through  an  exorbitant 
tax. 

It  has  also  been  common  phraseology  in  the  dairy  journals  to  refer 
to  colored  butterine  as  being  adulterated,  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  a 
two-edged  sword,  provided  the  term  is  used  correctly.  Upon  refer- 
ence to  Webster's  Dictionary,  however,  we  find  the  definition  of  the 
word  "adulterated"  to  be  as  follows:  " To  corrupt,  debase,  or  make 
impure  by  an  admixture  of  baser  materials."  It  is  readily  perceived, 
therefore,  that  the  term  "adulterated  "  as  applied  to  the  coloring  of 
butterine  is  inconsistent,  unless  the  makers  of  butter  or  the  editors  of 
the  dairy  journals  desire  to  establish  a  new  definition  for  the  word 
"adulterated,"  or  that  they  will  admit  that  they  have  debased  their 
product  or  made  it  impure  by  the  admixture  or  addition  of  baser  mate- 
rials, such  as  coloring  matter. 

Another  one  of  their  prize  cries  in  the  dairy  journals  is  that  they 
want  protection.  Who  asks  for  it  ?  The  manufacturer  ?  The  merchant  ? 
The  retailer?  The  mechanic?  The  artisan?  The  laborer?  No;  my 
dear  sirs,  not  these.  It  is  the  publishers  of  the  creamery  and  dairy 
journals  and  a  few  would-be  promoters  for  a  creamery  butter  trust. 
Nor  is  it,  as  they  publish  in  their  papers,  the  farmer  that  asks  for  pro- 
tection, because,  in  the  first  place,  the  farmer  does  not  have  to  eat  but- 
terine, and  consequently  needs  no  protection  on  this  point,  and,  besides, 
butter  making  on  the  farm  never  was  an  important  factor,  and  during 

SM  Rep.  2043 13 


194  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  present  advanced  age  of  creamery  butter  making  is  almost  a  lost 
art,  on  account  of  creameries  springing  up  at  every  crossroad  and  to 
which  farmers  deliver  milk,  because  it  pays  them  better  than  to  make 
butter  in  small  quantities,  taking  up  a  great  deal  of  their  time  for 
delivery  and  sale  in  the  cities,  etc.  In  our  opinion  if  anyone  needs 
protection  it  is  the  consumer  that  should  ask  for  it,  and  let  this  cry  of 
protection  die  out  until  it  emanates  from  the  proper  source — the  con- 
sumer. I  could  go  on  at  length  pointing  out  arguments  entirely  incon- 
sistent to  the  charges  made  against  the  butterine  manufacturers  of  the 
United  States,  but  will  content  myself  with  the  few  cases  already  sub- 
mitted, and  will  conclude  by  submitting  my  humble  opinion  of  what 
ought  to  be  done  with  this  biannually  vexatious  problem  of  coloring. 

First  of  all,  I,  as  a  manufacturer,  stand  upon  the  broad  base  and 
high  pinnacle  of  fair-mindedness,  and  openly  state,  without  retraction, 
that  if  butterine  is  not  wholesome,  pure,  and  nutritious,  and  if  its  man- 
ufacture is  not  conducted  in  a  scrupulously  cleanly  manner,  and  if  it  is 
not  in  every  way  a  food  product  fit  for  the  consumption  of  our  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  it  is  a  plain  and  recognized  duty  to  forbid  its 
manufacture  entirely;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  if  its  ingredients  are 
pure  and  its  manufacture  conducted  in  a  proper  manner,  and  if  it  is  in 
every  way  proportionately  as  wholesome  and  satisfactory  as  butter,  it 
should  be  allowed  to  be  manufactured  containing  that  very  insignifi- 
cant but  all-important  ingredient  of  yellow  color,  which  is  so  liberally 
prescribed  for  butter.  I  also  broadly  assert  that  Congressional  and 
State  legislation  should  tend  solely  for  the  betterment  of  food  products, 
and  particularly  in  the  case  of  butter  and  butterine  should  actually 
prescribe  that  both  products  should  be  colored  with  a  harmless  color- 
ing matter,  and  while  in  a  certain  sense  it  would  be  equitable  to  forbid 
the  coloring  of  butter  if  the  coloring  of  butterine  be  disallowed,  yet 
I,  for  one,  would  condemn  any  such  action,  because  I  think,  as  stated 
before,  that  legislation  should  encourage  the  coloring  of  both  products 
in  order  to  enhance  their  value  and  improve  the  sightliness  of  both, 
which  would  please  the  eye,  and  through  the  eye,  which  is  in  direct 
communication  with  the  stomach,  increase  the  palatability  of  the  prod- 
ucts, naturally  aiding  the  digestive  organs,  which  is  the  creator  of 
44 better  health,"  and  which  should  be  the  sole  object  of  all  food 
legislation. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  May  I  ask  a  question,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Are  you  sure,  Mr.  Pinning,  that  the  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Revenue  said  that  it  was  3  per  cent  of  oleomargarine  that  was 
sold  as  butter? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  That  is  common  knowledge  all  over  the  United  States. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  I  am  speaking  of  his  statement.  He  made  a  state- 
ment before  the  Agricultural  Committee  of  the  House,  and  you  have 
made  the  statement  here.  I  say  are  you  sure  of  that? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  That  was  my  information;  yes.  I  did  not  read  his 
report. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Another  thing.  In  speaking  of  the  inspection  of  the 
Government  in  the  oleo  factories,  do  you  mean  to  infer  that  the  Gov- 
ernment does  inspect  the  oleo  factories  ? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Most  decidedly. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  they  make  chemical  analyses  of  the  oleomargarine 
right  along? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  195 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Yes,  sir;  the  Bureau  of  Chemistry  of  the  Agricultural 
Department  does  that  for  them. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  How  many  factories  are  there  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  I  think  about  twenty -five  or  thirty. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  about  how  many  inspections  do  they  make  of 
the  products  you  turn  out? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  I  can  not  state  for  other  manufacturers,  but  perhaps 
they  come  to  us  five  or  six  times  a  year.  They  do  not  only  require 
samples  from  the  factories  for  the  inspection.  They  go  all  over  the 
United  States,  or  States  where  our  product  or  any  other  manufactured 
product  is  sold,  and  take  up  samples  unknown  to  us. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  they  analyze  them? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Yes. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  done  among  the  retailers? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Yes;  I  presume  so,  and  among  wholesalers  as  well. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  are  about  10,000  retailers  in  the  country, 
according  to  the  last  report. 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  I  do  not  know.  You  are  better  posted  on  that  than 
1  am. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  the  penalty  if  anything  is  found  in  your  prod- 
uct that  is  not  wholesome  ? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  I  have  always  understood  the  Government  would  be 
compelled  to  close  up  our  factory. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  are  not  acquainted  with  the  law  very  well,  then, 
are  you  ? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  I  thought  1  was. 

Mr.  CLARK.  They  would  not  only  close  it  up,  but  would  confiscate  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  would  confiscate  the  goods  that  they  find? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  They  will  close  up  our  factory.  If  you  will  read  the 
law,  you  will  post  yourself. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  What  are  the  restrictions  on  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine in  the  District  of  Columbia? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  can  not  answer  as  to  the  District  of  Columbia,  Mr. 
Heitfeld. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  When  you  have  time,  I  wish  you  would  look 
that  up. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  are  not  the  same  as  they  are  in  the  States. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  find  that  at  the  Center  Market  here  they  sell 
a  good  deal  of  it.  I  also  found,  after  carefully  looking  over  the  ground, 
that  they  were  selling  butter  at  one  side  of  the  stand  and  butterine  at 
the  other  side,  and  there  was  a  sign  above  the  stand  saying  "Butter- 
ine. "  I  could  not  see  anything  on  the  product  itself  that  showed  that 
it  was  butterine,  except  that  it  was  piled  in  each  case  on  boxes,  and 
the  boxes  had  the  revenue  stamp  on  them,  and  there  was  paper  lying 
on  the  counter  which  had  the  stamp  "  Oleomargarine  "  across  it.  I 
was  very  much  interested  in  the  matter,  and  I  found  that  they  had 
butterine  on  one  side  of  the  stand  and  butter  on  the  other  side.  I  did 
not  know  whether  there  was  any  law  that  compelled  them  to  keep  it 
separate  from  the  butter  product,  but  I  did  not  see  any  case  of  but- 
terine being  sold  on  the  butter  side  of  the  stand.  I  asked  one  of  the 
salesmen  there  whether  this  was  the  common  way  of  doing  this,  and 
he  said  it  was.  I  said  to  him,  u  Now,  there  is  not  a  thing  that  tells  me 
this  is  butterine  except  the  fact  that  I  see  it  above  there,  and  I  might 
not  look  up  there.  Do  you  tell  anybody  you  are  welling  butterine 


196  OLEOMARGARINE. 

here?"  He  said,  "No,  we  do  not;  but  then,"  he  said,  "you  can  see 
it  when  we  wrap' it  in  paper,"  which  is  true.  I  said,  "Are  you  afraid 
to  state  that  this  is  butterine?"  He  said,  "No;  but  we  "get  called 
down  pretty  often  if  we  do  call  it  that,  because  it  seems  to  be  objec- 
tionable to  the  people  to  have  their  attention  called  to  it." 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  will  state,  Senator,  that  on  page  12  of  the  House 
hearings  the  synopsis  of  the  District  of  Columbia  law  is  given.  It  is 
the  act  of  Congress  approved  March  2,  1895 : 

"Substances  in  semblance  of  butter  or  cheese,  not  made  exclusively 
of  milk  or  cream,  but  with  the  addition  of  melted  butter  or  any  oil, 
shall  be  plainly  branded  on  each  package  'Oleomargarine,'  and  a  label 
similarly  printed  must  accompany  each  retail  sale. " 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  In  answer  to  your  question,  Senator,  I  will  give  you 
a  little  information  on  that.  You  said  you  saw  no  marks  on  the  bricks  ? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  saw  no  mark. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  In  the  House  hearing  the  oleomargarine  people,  Swift 
&  Co. ,  came  before  the  committee  and  exhibited  some  bricks  of  oleo- 
margarine with  those  wrappers  on.  That  was  in  accordance  with  a 
certain  ruling. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  think  that  mark  was  on  the  brown  paper  they 
wrapped  it  in  down  here;  but  I  did  not  see  any  marks  on  the  product 
itself. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  tell  you  why  those  marks  were  absent.  A  few 
years  ago  they  used  to  put  the  words  "Jersey,"  "Holstein,"  and  all 
kinds  of  creamery  names  on  butterine.  Just  about  a  year  ago  the 
Internal-Revenue  Department  made  a  ruling  to  the  effect  that  if  they 
put  any  printed  matter  whatever  on  the  parchment  wrappers  that  went 
around  butterine,  they  must  also  put  the  word  "Oleomargarine"  in 
letters  of  a  certain  size.  Immediately  in  this  market  every  vestige  of 
printed  matter  disappeared  from  every  package  of  oleomargarine,  and 
I  do  not  believe  you  can  find  in  the  city  of  Washington  to-day  a  pound 
of  oleomargarine  on  sale  that  has  a  printed  wrapper  on  it;  because,  if 
they  put  the  printed  wrapper  on,  or  any  kind  of  printing,  it  must  have 
the  word  "Oleomargarine"  on  it. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  They  wrap  it  up  in  a  wrapper  that  has  the  word 
i '  Oleomargarine  "  on  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  it  does  not  have  that  word  on  the  brick. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  No,  not  on  the  brick.  The  brick  is  wrapped  in 
tissue  paper. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Formerly  they  had  the  words  "Swift's  Jersey"  and 
such  words  as  that;  but  when  the  ruling  was  made  that  they  should 
put  the  word  "Oleomargarine"  on  if  they  had  any  printing,  immedi- 
ately everything  dropped  off.  I  made  a  search  of  this  town,  in 
company  with  Representative  Neville,  of  Nebraska,  Representative 
Haugen,  of  Iowa,  and  Representative  Dahle,  of  Wisconsin,  and  we 
searched  every  place  to  find  a  package  of  oleomargarine  in  parchment 
paper  that  had  any  printing  on  it  at  all,  and  we  failed  to  find  one  in 
the  city. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Of  course,  if  anyone  were  looking  out  for  it, 
he  could  find  it  very  nicety  in  this  sign  above  the  stand. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  may  be,  in  the  Center  Market. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  If  anybod}^  desired  to  avoid  buying  it,  he  could 
see  that  sign;  or  if  anybody  wanted  it  very  bad  he  could  see  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  just  as  likely  to  be  butterine  on  the  butter  side, 


OLEOMARGARINE.  197 

though.  I  want  to  tell  you  an  experience  I  had  in  the  house  of  this 
man  who  is  promoting  this  National  or  Standard  Butterine  Company 
here.  We  called  in  there,  and  asked  him  if  he  had  any  of  Swift's 
Jersey  Butterine.  He  said  he  had.  Mr.  Neville  and  Mr.  Haugen  and 
Mr.  Dahle  were  with  me.  I  said,  "Let  me  see  a  package,  please." 
He  brought  out  a  package  which  was  absolutely  plain.  I  said,  "Is 
this  Swift's  Jersey  Butterine  ? "  He  said,  ' '  It  is. "  I  said,  ' '  But  I  am 
accustomed  to  seeing  it.  I  am  quite  familiar  with  the  brand."  He 
took  me  for  a  dealer,  from  the  knowledge  I  displayed  of  the  differ- 
ent brands  of  oleomargarine,  and  he  said,  "Well,  I  will  tell  you. 
According  to  a  new  rule  that  has  been  issued  by  the  Internal-Revenue 
Department,  if  they  put  anything  on  they  must  put  on  the  word 
'oleomargarine,'  don't  you  see;  so  you  would  have  to  have  the  word 
'oleomargarine'  on  it  if  there  was  anything  printed  on  it  at  all." 
Congressman  Neville  and  Congressman  Haugen  and  Congressman 
Dahle  heard  him  tell  me  that  thing  at  that  time;  and  he  is  now  pro- 
moting a  million-dollar  plant  for  manufacturing  butterine  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia. 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Mr.  Knight,  the  United  States  internal-revenue  laws 
prescribe,  under  penalty,  that  each  retail  lot  of  oleomargarine  shall 
nave  on  the  wrapper,  on  the  wooden  dish,  plainly  stamped,  the  name 
of  the  seller,  his  address,  and  the  word  "oleomargarine?" 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes. 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Tell  me  what  injustice  there  would  be  to  have  on  the 
product  itself  "Swift's  Jersey,"  "Holstein,"  "Elgin, "or  any  other 
name,  with  that  wrapper  on  the  outside,  as  prescribed  under  penalty 
by  the  United  States  interal-revenue  laws? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  injustice  there  would  be? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Yes;  what  injustice? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  would  be  just  about  like  printing  it  on  ice.  You 
could  print  it  on  ice  with  about  the  same  effect. 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  What  does  the  consumer  first  see? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  He  does  not  see  anything,  as  a  rule. 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  He  sees  the  outside  of  the  wrapper. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  what  is  the  outside  of  the  wrapper  ?  I  have  a 
few  of  them  to  exhibit  to  the  committee. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  must  proceed  in  order  here.  Who  is 
the  next  gentleman  who  desires  to  be  heard  ? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Is  it  not  time  for  the  committee  to  adjourn?  If 
we  adjourn  so  late  in  the  afternoon,  it  does  not  give  me  time  to  look 
over  my  mail  in  the  evening,  and  it  makes  it  rather  burdensome  in  the 
morning. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  understood  there  were  four  gentlemen  here 
to  speak  for  the  oleomargarine  side. 

Mr.  CLARK.  The  samples  of  one  of  the  gentlemen  have  not  arrived 
yet. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  of  you  will  be  prepared  to  go  on 
to-morrow?  How  long  a  time  do  you  want,  Mr.  Tillinghast? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  shall  be  through  in  a  hour,  at  least;  perhaps 
less. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Another  gentleman  said  he  would  desire  to 
speak  for  an  hour. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes;  but  I  can  say  what  I  have  to  say  at  any  time. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  both  ready  to  go  on  to-morrow  ? 


198  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  If  there  is  no  one  here  who  wants  to  get  through  and 
get  away  I  will  be  ready;  yes. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Did  not  Senator  Proctor  say  that  he  had  prom- 
ised some  time  to  some  of  Mr.  Penrose's  constituents  to-morrow? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  they  will  be  here  to-morrow. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Of  course  we  will  have  to  be  guided  by  what 
the  chairman  arranged  for  in  the  matter.  The  gentlemen  who  arc 
ready  to  proceed  had  better  be  here  to-morrow  morning. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  assume  that  these  two  gentlemen  can  be 
heard  to-morrow  as  well  as  the  Pennsylvania  people. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  just  one  suggestion  there.  It  seems  to 
me  it  would  be  fairer  if  the  friends  of  this  bill  should  get  their  case  in, 
and  then  we  can  reply.  As  it  is,  they  put  it  in  piecemeal.  They  have 
the  right  to  close,  and  we  are  talking  in  the  air.  The  burden  of  proof 
is  on  them,  and  they  should  make  their  case  and  then  give  us  a  chance 
at  it. 

.Senator  HEITFELD.  Some  of  your  men  are  dilatory  also,  so  we  will 
have  to  do  the  best  we  can.  We  find  that  some  of  those  who  desire  to 
appear  before  the  committee  can  not  be  here  until  next  week,  and  if 
we  do  not  have  these  dairymen  to  fill  in,  we  will  probably  be  without 
work. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  Chairman  understands  that  Governor 
Hoard  and  Mr.  Knight  desire  to  close  their  case,  but  in  the  meantime 
you  are  asking  each  other  questions  back  and  forth,  and  taking  up 
time  in  that  way;  and  it  is  not  quite  the  fair  thing. 

The  committee  stands  adjourned  now  until  half  past  ten  to-morrow 
morning. 

The  committee,  at  4.30  o'clock  p.m.,  adjourned  until  Saturday, 
January  5,  1901,  at  10.30  a.  m. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Saturday,  January  5,  1901. 

The  committee  met  at  10. 30  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Hansbrough  (acting  chairman),  Foster,  Money, 
Heitfeld,  and  Dolliver.  Also,  Hon.  W.  D.  Hoard,  ex-governor  of 
Wisconsin,  president  of  the  National  Dairy  Union;  C.  Y.  Knight,  sec- 
retary of  the  National  Dairy  Union;  Hon.  William  M.  Springer,  Frank 
M.  Matthewson,  Frank  W.  Tillinghast,  Charles  E.  Schell,  Francis  W. 
Lestrade,  and  others. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Tillinghast. 


STATEMENT  OF  FRANK  W.  TILLINGHAST. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Before  I  begin  my  remarks,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am 
requested  to  read  a  short  letter  written  to  the  committee  by  the  Hol- 
land Butterine  Company,  manufacturers  of  high-grade  butterine,  of 
Pittsburg,  Pa. ,  whose  representative  could  not  be  present.  It  is  very 
short,  and  I  will  read  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  have  it  printed  without  reading- 
it,  if  you  so  desire. 

(The  letter  above  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  199 

PITTSBURG,  PA.,  January  1,  1901. 
Hon.  REDFIELD  PROCTOR, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Agriculture, 

United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Being  the  only  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  in  Penn- 
sylvania, operating  under  a  charter  granted  by  our  State,  and  situated 
in  Pittsburg,  one  of  the  largest  markets  for  oleomargarine  in  the 
country,  we  are  in  such  close  touch  with  the  trade  that  we  can  speak 
correctly  on  the  situation  here. 

We  know  and  can  furnish  indisputable  proofs  that  scarcely  any  of 
our  product  is  sold  to  consumers  as  butter.  Our  goods  cost  the  con- 
sumer 17  to  20  cents  per  pound,  while  creamery  butter  costs  30  to 
33  cents.  We  maintain  that  90  per  cent  of  the  purchasers  of  oleo- 
margarine in  the  Pittsburg  district  know  exactly  what  they  buy. 

The  great  difference  in  prices  of  the  oleomargarine  and  butter  has 
been  the  best  possible  source  of  enlightenment,  especially  to  the  labor- 
ing classes,  and  it  is  on  these  that  such  a  tax  as  proposed  by  this 
bill  will  be  the  greatest  burden;  being  deprived  of  oleomargarine  as  an 
article  of  diet  to  which  they  have  become  accustomed,  they  will  be 
compelled  to  pay  a  much  higher  price  for  the  same  or  a  similar  article. 
Custom,  habit,  and  the  involuntary  influence  of  the  eye  on  the  palate 
demands  that  all  butter  and  substitutes  for  it  shall  be  golden  in  color, 
and  seeing  that  natural  butter  is  artificially  colored  in  order  to  be  more 
palatable,  why  should  oleomargarine  not  be  also? 

If  necessary  to  tax  oleomargarine  to  prohibition  because  artificially 
colored,  why  not  also  tax  all  compounds  which  are  vile  substitutes  for 
molasses,  jellies,  vinegars,  preserves,  liquors,  etc.,  in  the  same  manner. 
This  exorbitant  and  unjust  tax  will  not  prevent,  but  rather  encourage 
fraud,  because  the  increased  cost  will  bring  retail  prices  so  much  nearer 
that  of  butter,  thereby  taking  away  the  best  possible  proofs  to  the 
consumer  whether  he  buys  oleomargarine  or  butter.  For  example,  in 
our  market  where  the  prevailing  price  is  3  pounds  for  50  cents  it  will 
be  3  pounds  for  75  cents,  and  consequently  much  more  easily  repre- 
sented as  pure  butter  at  2  or  3  cents  higher. 

If  the  sole  object  of  this  bill  is  to  prevent  fraud  and  not  to  deprive 
the  laboring  classes  of  a  cheap  and  wholesome  article  of  food  there  are 
many  ways  of  fully  advising  the  purchaser  what  he  buys  without 
changing  its  present  constituent  parts  or  color. 

It  is  plainly  evident  that  the  object  of  this  bill  is  to  increase  profits 
for  one  class,  butter  makers,  and  to  do  so  at  the  expense  of  three 
others,  stock  raisers,  oleomargarine  manufacturers,  and  the  class  of 
millions  who  consumed  about  100,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  in 
1900.  This  last  class  mentioned  must  pay  for  all  in  the  end — millions 
of  dollars  in  unnecessary  taxes  to  the  United  States  Treasury  or  else 
corresponding  millions  to  the  "innocents"  who  furnish  them  pure 
butter  at  advanced  prices. 

Is  it  possible  that  such  legislation  can  be  enacted  by  our  great  United 
States  Senate?  We  hope  not. 

Very  respectfully  submitted. 

HOLLAND  BUTTERINE  COMPANY, 
W.  W.  PRINCE,  Manager. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  In  the  discussion  of  this  measure  I  shall  make  no 
reference  to  the  legal  status  of  the  bill  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  necessary 


200  OLEOMARGARINE. 

to  characterize  the  spirit  of  the  advocates  of  the  measure.  This  bill, 
if  it  rests  upon  good  legal  foundation,  must  of  necessity  base  its 
strength  upon  the  taxing  power  of  Congress,  an  all-powerful  weapon; 
and  it  is  confessedly,  by  its  advocates  and  by  its  opponents,  a  bill 
which  will  not  raise  a  revenue,  but  which  will  destroy  the  revenue 
which  is  now  collected  by  the  present  tax  on  oleomargarine.  There- 
fore, we  must  say  at  once  that  the  bill  is  not  honest  in  raising  revenue, 
but  really  is  an  attempt  under  the  guise  of  a  revenue  measure  to  do 
that  which  it  could  not  do  directly.  In  other  words,  Congress  could 
not  pass  an  act  prohibiting  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine.  Its 
police  power  would  not  extend  to  the  States  in  that  matter.  The  po- 
lice power  of  the  States,  and  they  have  almost  sovereign  power  within 
the  limits  of  the  State  constitution  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  is  supposed  to  extend  itself  to  those  matters  affecting  the  pub- 
lic health,  public  morals,  and  public  safety;  and  within  those  limits 
the  States  have  the  right  to  legislate  and  do  legislate,  so  that  if  any 
State  requires  to  pass  a  law  against  colored  oleomargarine,  it  has  been 
decided,  as  you  well  know,  that  they  have  that  power;  and,  indeed, 
I  am  told  that  some  thirty-two  States  have  already  passed  laws  against 
the  sale  and  manufacture,  or  against  the  sale,  at  least,  if  not  the  man- 
ufacture, of  colored  oleomargarine,  or  oleomargarine  made  in  sem- 
blance of  butter. 

So  that  the  States  having  full  power  to  pass  those  laws  and  having 
the  entire  machinery  of  the  States  to  enforce  them  may  do  so  as  they 
please.  They  have  no  excuse  whatever  to  come  to  Congress  and  ask 
Congress  to  pass  police  regulations  for  the  several  States.  The  only 
excuse  that  can  possibly  be  offered  in  coming  to  Congress  and  asking 
it  through  the  guise  of  taxation  to  extend  itself  and  pass  police  regula- 
tions in  the  several  States,  is  the  cowardly  confession  that  the  laws  of 
those  States  are  not  enforced;  that  the  laws  against  colored  oleomar- 
garine are  violated  in  those  States  while  those  laws  obtain;  and  they 
would  have  just  as  good  an  excuse  to  come  here  to  Congress  and  ask 
Congress  to  pass  some  sort  of  legislation  under  some  guise  or  other, 
taxation  or  whatever  you  please,  to  enforce  the  laws  against  larceny  or 
adultery,  or  any  one  of  the  criminal  code. 

Therefore,  gentlemen,  the  proposition  for  you  to  extend  the  police 
regulations  of  the  United  States  to  the  several  States  is  something  which 
you  have  not  the  constitutional  or  moral  or  historical  right  to  do,  if  it 
came  in  exactly  that  form.  It  must  be  done  under  the  deception  of  a 
revenue  measure,  and  that  is  the  way  it  is  attempted  to  be  done  here. 
What  possible  right,  what  possible  reason  can  be  suggested  that  you 
shall  impose  upon  the  State  of  Rhode  Island  a  police  regulation  which 
it  does  not  desire.  The  State  of  Rhode  Island  is  quite  well  satisfied 
with  the  enactments  of  its  own  legislature.  It  legislates  concerning 
this  oleomargarine  question  just  as  it  pleases,  and  it  is  quite  satisfied 
with  that  legislation.  It  looks  with  alarm,  as  every  jurist  and  thought- 
ful person  must  look,  at  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  extend 
a  police  regulation  into  a  State  that  is  supposed  to  have  had  heretofore 
the  right  to  make  its  own  police  regulations. 

I  am  not  attempting  a  constitutional  argument.  That  can  better  be 
made  by  those  who  are  more  qualified  to  make  it  than  myself;  but  I 
am  enforcing  that  point,  that  Rhode  Island,  with  other  States,  claims 
the  right. to  exercise  its  own  police  powers,  and  that  this  is  nothing 
more  than  a  police  law. 


OLEOMAKGARINE.  20 1 

I  said  that  the  only  excuse  they  could  have  for  coining  here  was  the 
confession  that  those  laws  are  not  enforced  concerning  colored  oleo- 
margarine in  those  States  where  those  laws  obtain;  and  I  said  that  that 
was  no  excuse  for  coming  to  Congress,  and  it  is  not,  even  if  it  were 
admitted,  for  the  purposes  of  argument,  that  there  was  a  large  amount 
of  colored  oleomargarine  sold  in  those  States  contrary  to  law,  and  sold 
in  fraud  of  butter — a  proposition  which  I  am  not  ready  to" admit.  But 
I  am  ready  to  confess  and  state  what  I  believe  to  be  true  with  reference 
to  that  matter,  that  there  is  more  colored  oleomargarine  sold  contrary 
to  law  in  those  States  which  have  laws  against  it  than  there  is  in  those 
States  where  oleomargarine  is  permitted  to  be  sold  for  exactly  what  it 
is;  and  concerning  that  question  I  can  speak  with  some  personal 
experience  and  some  knowledge.  This  committee  has  sat  most 
patiently,  and  they  have  the  gratitude,  I  am  sure,  of  all  the  oleomar- 
garine people  as  well  as  the  dairymen,  because  they  have  been  most 
fair  and  lenient;  and  if  we  have  been,  perhaps,  very  anxious  to  pre- 
sent our  claims,  it  must  be  pardoned  because  of  the  fact  that  the  con- 
sideration of  this  bill  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to  us,  of  far  greater 
importance  to  us  than  it  is  to  the  dairy  interests.  There  should  be  no 
argument  left  unmade,  and  no  fact,  disguised  or  unknown,  that  should 
not  be  put  in  the  possession  of  this  committee. 

I  was  about  to  say  that  I  had  some  knowledge  of  how  oleomargarine 
is  sold  in  one  State,  at  least,  where  the  only  regulation  concerning 
oleomargarine  is  that  it  must  be  sold  for  what  it  is  and  can  not  be  sold 
for  what  it  is  not;  and  that  does  not  appertain  to  the  color.  In  Rhode 
Island  oleomargarine  has  been  sold  ever  since  it  was  invented,  and  the 
sales  of  oleomargarine  have  constantly  increased  in  that  State.  While 
those  sales  have  constantly  increased,  I  will  say  that  with  reference  to 
the  city  of  Providence  there  is  not  a  better  butter  market  in  the  world 
in  comparison  to  the  population.  There  is  not  a  place  where  butter 
brings  a  higher  price,  or  where  better  butter  is  found  upon  the  mar- 
ket. Within  less  than  one  week  I  have  myself  tasted  butter  in  the 
city  of  Providence  that  is  better  than  I  have  seen  in  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington or  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Further,  oleomargarine  is  not  sold  in  Providence  or  in  the  State  of 
Rhode  Island  for  butter,  and  1  would  be  willing  to  state  that  I  would 
pay  a  forfeiture  of  $500  for  every  violation  of  the  oleomargarine  law 
of  the  State  of  Rhode  Island.  There  is  no  temptation  whatever  in 
that  State  to  sell  oleomargarine  for  what  it  is  not,  because  it  comes 
in  competition  with  butter.  It  is  advertised  on  the  streets  for  what  it  is. 
Everybody  knows  that  they  can  buy  oleomargarine  for  15  cents  a  pound 
in  wholesale  quantities  in  10-pound  packages,  or  17  cents  at  retail; 
and  it  is  in  the  stores  side  by  side  with  butter.  You  have  free  course 
to  buy  whatever  you  please,  and  there  is  no  attempt  on  the  part  of 
the  retail  dealer  or  the  wholesale  dealer  to  induce  you  to  buy  it.  It  is 
so  generally  known  as  a  food  product  in  the  stores  and  throughout  the 
States,  that  there  is  no  temptation  whatever  to  deceive  anybody,  and 
try  to  sell  it  for  butter. 

It  is  true  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  as  I  suppose  it  is  true  in  all 
other  States  that  have  the  anticolor  law,  that  a  percentage,  perhaps  a 
considerable  percentage  (I  can  give  you  my  guess,  as  other  people  can 

five  you  theirs)  is  sold  for  butter.     1  want  to  be  honest  about  this — 
want  to  treat  this  question  fairly;  and  I  say  the  reason  that  any  of 
it,  or  any  considerable  amount  of  it,  is  sold  for  butter  is  due  to  the 


202  OLEOMARGARINE. 

State  laws  that  prohibit  its  being  sold  for  what  it  is;  and  it  is  simply 
running  up  against  the  experience  of  all  mankind — that  if  people  want 
an  article  they  will  give  it.  They  will  obtain  it;  and  you  can  no  more 
enforce  prohibition  of  oleomargarine  in  Massachusetts  than  you  can 
enforce  prohibition  of  liquor  in  the  State  of  Maine.  You  can  enforce 
them  approximately,  but  there  will  be  constant  violations  of  the  law, 
and  people  will  obtain  the  article  if  they  really  want  it—  if  it  is  an 
article  which  they  desire. 

But  I  am  not  ready  to  admit,  sir,  that  any  large  amount  of  oleomarga- 
rine is  sold  in  Massachusetts — for  I  am  quite  familiar  with  the  sales  of 
oleomargarine  in  that  State  for  butter — or  that  many  people  in  the 
State  of  Massachusetts  are  deceived  who  get  oleomargarine  when  they 
buy  butter.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  three-fourths  of  all  the  oleomarga- 
rine sold  in  Massachusetts  is  sold  in  the  original  package,  and  it  is,  I 
think,  a  fact — it  is  so  far  as  I  have  examined  the  matter,  and  I  have 
been  very  familiar  with  the  prosecutions  in  Massachusetts — that  during 
the  entire  time  that  they  have  had  the  anticolor  law  in  the  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts there  has  not  been  a  prosecution  for  selling  oleo  for  butter. 
The  prosecutions  have  invariably  been  for  selling  oleo  for  oleo;  and 
in  courts  where  I  have  been  many  times  the  testimony  is  this:  "I 
went  to  a  store  and  asked  for  oleomargarine  and  I  obtained  oleomarga- 
rine;" and  the  court  has  only  to  say,  "  You  are  guilty." 

I  should  say  that  it  is  possible  that  25  per  cent  of  the  oleo  in  those 
States  that  have  such  laws — laws  to  the  effect  that  it  can  not  be  sold  for 
what  it  is— in  those  32  States  it  is  possible,  perhaps,  that  25  per  cent 
of  the  amount  sold  is  sold  for  butter.  Now,  gentlemen,  suppose  that 
were  true.  It  has  been  estimated  here  by  the  gentleman  who  spoke 
yesterday  that  in  Pennsylvania  bethought  50  per  cent  of  the  oleo  sold 
in  Pennsylvania  was  sold  for  butter.  Another  man,  I  think,  said  he 
thought  what  was  sold  in  Ohio  would  be  equivalent  to  50  or  75  per  cent 
of  the  whole.  But  neither  of  those  gentlemen  could  give  you  any  infor- 
mation whatever  as  to  the  amount  of  oleo  that  was  sold  in  Pennsylvania 
or  the  amount  of  oleo  that  was  sold  in  Ohio;  and  if  they  could  not  give 
you  any  estimate  as  to  the  entire  amount  I  should  doubt  very  much 
the  accuracy  of  their  judgment  as  to  what  proportion  was  sold  for 
butter. 

Suppose  it  were  true  that  25  per  cent  of  the  oleo  of  the  country— 
and  certainly  the  percentage  could  not  be  more  than  that,  for  as  I  said 
a  little  while  ago  it  is  only  in  those  States  that  have  these  severe  laws 
where  oleo  is  sold  for  butter — suppose  that  thoughout  this  entire 
country  last  year  25  per  cent  of  all  the  oleo  of  the  country  was  sold  for 
butter;  what  effect  would  that  have  upon  the  farmer?  One  hundred 
and  seven  million  pounds  of  oleo  were  sold  year  before  last.  We  have 
not  the  returns  for  last  year. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  That  w  as  for  the  year  ending  last  June. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir.  Twenty-five  per  cent  of  that  in  round 
numbers  would  be  25,000,000  pounds.  Every  ingredient  that  went 
into  that  oleo  came  off  the  farm.  The  farmer  did  not  lose  it  all,  because 
it  was  sold  for  oleo  instead  of  butter.  .  Every  dollar  that  the  raw 
material  cost  came  from  the  farm.  I  have  estimated  it,  and  estimated 
it  fairly,  I  think,  at  6  cents  per  pound,  so  that  the  farmer  did  receive, 
even  for  that  oleo  which  was  sold  for  butter,  $1,500,000.  Now,  the 
only  thing  you  can  say  he  lost  was  the  difference  between  what  he 
would  have  had  if  that  same  amount  had  been  sold  for  butter  and  what 


OLEOMARGARINE.  203 

he  did  get;  in  other  words,  if  they  had  bought  the  farmer's  product 
instead  of  oleo,  figuring  that  as  16  cents  a  pound,  the  farmer  would 
have  received  $4,000,000 — or  the  farmers  would  have  received  it  as  a 
class,  as  a  whole — $2,500,000  more  than  they  did  receive  when  they 
bought  oleo  instead  of  butter.  What  percentage  of  profit  would  that 
figure  to  the  farmer?  The  profit  is  there,  because  the  farmer  only  lost 
his  profit.  He  could  not  receive  the  $2,500,000  for  his  butter  without 
giving  up  something  for  it.  He  would  have  to  give  up  labor;  he  would 
have  to  give  up  cows;  he  would  have  to  give  up  everything  that  went 
into  the  cost  of  the  butter;  and  I  am  told  here  by  farmers  that  with 
butter  at  16  cents  a  pound  the  profit  is  not  anything;  but  assuming  the 
profit  to  be  at  least  a  cent  a  pound,  or  5  per  cent,  which  the  wholesale 
dealer  tries  to  make,  then  the  profit  which  the  farmer  lost  would  be 
exactly  $500,000 — the  farmers  as  a  class. 

If  we  speak  of  the  farmers  as  a  class,  that  is  what  they  would  have 
lost,  $500,000;  and  if  the  estimate  is  correct,  that  there  are  5,000,000 
farmers  in  the  United  States,  the  loss  to  each  farmer  would  be  exactly 
10  cents,  and  no  more.  But  it  is  not  right  to  speak  of  farmers  as  a 
class  and  say  that  they  lost  it,  because  we  are  only  a  part  of  this  great 
community  of  75,000,000  people,  and  instead  of  the  farmers  getting  it 
it  went  elsewhere,  perhaps  into  channels  as  meritorious  as  the  farmers 
themselves.  It  is  sometimes  wrong,  it  seems  to  me,  to  speak  of  farm- 
ers as  a  class.  The  farmer  of  to-day  becomes,  perhaps,  the  mechanic 
of  to-morrow,  or  becomes  the  teacher  or  the  legislator.  His  daughters 
and  his  sons  become  teachers  and  professors  and  lawyers,  so  that  it  is 
not  quite  correct  to  single  out  a  certain  class  and  say  that  class  is  entitled 
to  so  much  money.  It  is  simply  a  part  of  one  growing  unit. 

So  that  the  loss  to  the  farmer  was  not  more  than  10  cents  apiece 
throughout  the  United  States,  what  possible  reason  is  there,  gentle- 
men, for  their  coming  here  to  Congress  to  make  the  howl  about  this 
bill  that  they  are  making  ?  What  possible  benefit  would  it  be  to  the 
farmer  over  and  above  that  small  amount  to  have  this  amount  of  oleo 
which  is  sold  for  butter — admitting  that  there  was  so  much  sold  for 
butter — taken  out  of  the  market  and  butter  supplied  in  its  place  ?  You 
understand,  gentlemen,  that  if  these  people  are  honest  in  their  conten- 
tions they  mean  simply  this:  They  say  they  have  no  objection  to  the  sale 
of  oleo  so  long  as  it  is  sold  for  what  it  is;  that  they  have  no  objection  to 
selling  oleo,  whether  colored  or  uncolored,  if  it  can  be  sold  for  what  it 
is.  They  simply  tell  you,  gentlemen,  that  it  can  not  and  never  will  be 
sold  for  what  it  is  unless  it  is  so  made  that  it  can  not  be  sold  for  butter, 
so  that  nobody  can  be  deceived. 

Now,  gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  ingenuity  of  a  legislature, 
it  seems  to  me  that  anybody  with  ordinary  capacity,  could  so  frame  a 
law  and  enforce  it  that  oleo  must  be  sold  for  what  it  is,  whether  it  is 
colored  or  uncolored.  It  strikes  me  that  if  we  had  a  law  providing 
that  the  packages  themselves  must  be  so  done  up  in  certain  paper,  so 
marked,  so  branded,  as  to  make  it  distinguishable,  and  then  if  we  had 
a  regulation  that  it  should  only  be  sold  in  those  original  packages  from 
the  factory,  nobody  could  ever  be  deceived  as  to  what  they  were 
buying. 

Now,  if  you  tell  me  that  even  then  the  deception  would  be  continued, 
because  a  man  would  buy  it  and  take  it  home  to  his  wife  and  deceive 
his  wife  and  his  children  in  putting  it  on  the  table  and  telling  his  wife 
he  was  buying  butter,  I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  if  you  attempt 


204  OLEOMAKGAEINE. 

to  regulate  the  table  of  the  home  you  are  attempting  something  which 
is  absolutely  impossible,  and  there  is  no  use  in  attempting  it.  It  would 
be  an  absurd  thing  to  attempt.  You  might  as  well  say  that  I  shall  put 
upon  my  table  a  synopsis,  a  digest,  of  what  the  hash  is  made  of,  or  that 
I  shall  brand  my  coffee,  and  say  that  it  cost  only  20  cents  a  pound,  or 
that  I  shall  expose  my  poverty  to  my  guest  by  saying  that  this  is  oleo- 
margarine. I  will  not  discuss  this  further,  because  I  am  sure,  gentle- 
men, that  that  is  too  absurd  to  talk  about,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to 
consider  in  any  sense  that  it  is  proper  or  legitimate  to  go  into  the  secrets 
of  the  home  and  try  to  regulate  the  home  table. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Have  you  discussed  the  reason  why  the  product 
is  colored  ?  Why  do  they  not  put  it  on  the  market  in  its  natural  con- 
dition ? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  That  has  been  discussed  by  others  who  preceded 
me,  and  very  thoroughly,  too. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  If  it  is  in  the  record,  that  is  all  that  is  necessary. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  will  say  that  it  is  simply  conformable  to  the 
law  of  custom  and  taste,  one  of  the  strongest  laws  to  run  up  against. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  you  think  anybody  would  buy  it  if  it  was 
light  or  white  colored? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  it  would  be  sold  in  very  limited 
quantities. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  understood  from  some  of  your  people  that 
they  thought  if  they  were  compelled  to  color  it  white  it  would  destroy 
the  market.  They  have  written  to  me  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir;  there  is  no  doubt  about  that.  It  would 
entirely  destroy  the  industry  as  an  industry.  An  industry  putting  out 
107,000,000  pounds  a  year  would  be  practically  totally  destroyed, 
because  nobody  would  buy  white  oleomargarine  to  put  upon  their  table. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Is  that  mere  prejudice  and  custom? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Solely  that  and  nothing  more,  sir. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  It  seems  to  me  you  might  overcome  that  preju- 
dice. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  You  could  not  overcome  it  so  long  as  butter  is 
colored.  So  long  as  butter  is  put  upon  the  table  yellow,  in  my  judg- 
ment, it  would  be  impossible  to  sell  white  oleo  as  against  colored  butter. 
You  can  sell  white  oleo  against  white  butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  it  destroy  the  butter  business  if 
butter  were  not  colored  ? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  great  hotels,  I  notice,  are  serving  white 
butter.  Have  you  noticed  that  ? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Without  even  salt  in  it? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir.     I  know  that  is  true  in  some  cases. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  noticed  that  in  a  hotel  in  New  York  the  other 
day. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes;  that  is  true,  I  think,  at  the  Waldorf. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  They  do  that,  perhaps,  in  order  to  guarantee 
their  good  faith. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  In  response  to  your  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
am  of  the  opinion  that  people  would  eat  butter,  that  they  could  not 
get  along  without  the  use  of  butter,  and  that  if  all  butter  was  white 
there  would  be  the  same  quantity  of  butter  used  as  is  used  to-day. 


. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  205 


Senator  HEITFELD.  Then  you  think  if  all  butter  was  uncolored, 
you  could  let  your  oleo  go  uncolored? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Why,  certainly. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  would  suggest  a  compromise  with  the  dairy- 
man— throw  away  all  the  color. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir;  if  they  will  do  that.  I  noticed  the  gen- 
tlemen on  the  other  side  laugh  when  I  said  that  if  all  butter  was  white, 
we  could  sell  oleomargarine  white. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Oh,  well,  you  had  your  laugh  yesterday. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  am  going  to  have  it  again.  I  said  that  if  all 
butter  was  white  we  could  sell  oleo  white;  and  that  is  true.  I  will  tell 
you  why  it  is  true.  I  am  here  to  confess  and  to  state  that  oleomargarine, 
notwithstanding  it  is  a  distinct  product  known  to  science,  is  a  product 
that  is  used  by  people  who  use  it  for  butter  knowing  that  it  is  oleo- 
margarine, and  using  the  substitute  instead  of  the  real  article.  They 
use  it  because  it  is  a  substitute.  You  may  use  the  word  " imitation" 
if  you  please,  and  I  will  agree  with  you.  It  is  an  imitation  of  butter; 
and  being  an  imitation  it  is  sold  as  the  imitation,  and  people  buy  it 
because  it  is  an  imitation,  and  they  would  not  want  it  if  it  was  not  an 
imitation.  It  is  an  imitation,  precisely  the  same  as  cotton  may  imitate 
worsted.  People  buy  it  because  it  is  an  imitation,  and  they  know  what 
they  are  buying  and  they  know  what  they  are  using.  Would  you 
pass  a  law  here  that  would  destroy  the  use  of  all  imitations  ?  Why, 
it  is  one  of  my  delightful  recollections  to  think  that  for  25  cents  I  can 
buy  a  painting  that  will  imitate  the  finest  paintings  in  the  world  by 
the  finest  masters,  and  I  buy  it  because  it  is  an  imitation.  It  is  grati- 
fying to  me  to  know  that  for  25  cents  I  can  buy  a  volume  of  Shakes- 
peare that  will  contain  just  as  good  reading  matter  as  the  most  expen- 
sive edition  that  could  possibly  be  put  out.  Imitations  are  not  to  be 
legislated  against.  They  are  proper;  they  are  legitimate;  they  are 
right;  and  people  will  have  them  just  as  long  as  people  live. 

So  that  if  oleomargarine  imitates  butter,  as  it  does,  and  people  buy 
it  because  it  imitates  butter,  and  would  not  buy  it  if  it  did  not  imitate 
butter,  then  unless  there  is  some  reason  other  than  has  been  given 
here,  there  should  be  no  legislation  against  it.  The  only  reason  sug- 
gested is  that  in  some  instances  it  is  sold  for  butter.  I  have  already 
stated  that  that  is  of  too  small  consequence  to  be  considered  by  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  because  it  amounts  to  so  very,  very 
little. 

There  is  one  feature  of  this  discussion  that  I  had  supposed  would  be 
entirely  unnecessary  to  enter  upon.  That  is  the  wholesomeness  and 
healthfulness  of  the  article.  I  had  supposed  before  coming  here  that 
if  there  was  one  question  that  had  been  settled  to  the  knowledge  of  all 
men  it  was  the  question  of  the  healthfulness  of  this  article.  Indeed,  it 
was  so  generally  understood  that  I  was  not  at  all  surprised  at  one 
member  of  this  committee,  when  that  question  was  spoken  of,  saying 
that  he  did  not  understand  that  that  question  was  raised  here.  But, 
gentlemen,  it  has  been  raised  here.  It  has  been  raised  here  incidentally 
by  almost  every  speaker  who  has  spoken  in  advocacy  of  this  bill,  and 
notwithstanding  the  mass  of  testimony,  the  number  of  chemists,  doc- 
tors, and  scientific  men  throughout  the  United  States  and  elsewhere 
throughout  the  world  have  testified  to  the  entire  healthfulness  of  this 
article;  yet,  notwithstanding  this,  in  this  temple  distinguished  for  learn- 


206  OLEOMARGARINE. 

ing  and  research,  you  will  find  that  it  is  suggested  even  at  this  late  day 
that  the  article  which  they  are  asking  you  to  tax  at  the  rate  of  10  cents 
a  pound  may  not  be  a  wholesome  and  healthful  article.  Look  at  the 
flims}^  argument  that  they  submit  as  tending  to  show  that  that  is  true. 
Why,  they  say,  gentlemen,  that  it  does  not  digest  as  quickly  as  butter, 
that  its  melting  point  is  higher,  and  therefore  it  is  more  difficult  to 
digest,  as  they  say;  and  they  read  from  Professor  Wilej^  to  that  effect — 
that  its  melting  point  was  higher.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  gentlemen,  the 
melting  point  of  butter  and  butterine  of  the  best  grades  is  precisely 
the  same.  But  they  did  not  read  all  of  Professor  Wiley's  statement 
about  its  being  slower  to  digest.  If  they  had  they  would  have  been 
fairer  to  the  committee.  I  therefore  call  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  this  again. 

Dr.  WILEY.  My  impression  in  regard  to  the  digestibility  of  butter 
as  compared  to  oleomargarine  is  formed  from  a  purely  theoretical 
standpoint,  without  having  tried  experiments  on  human  beings  and 
noted  the  time  of  digestion,  because  I  do  not  know  that  that  has  been 
accomplished,  and  more  than  that  the  actual  time  of  digestion  is  a 
matter  of  very  little  consequence,  provided  the  food  is  digested.  In 
fact  it  is  a  very  good  thing  that  we  do  not  digest  all  our  food  instan- 
taneously, because  otherwise  we  would  be  hungry  after  one  meal 
before  we  would  get  the  next.  The  fact  that  a  food  is  slow  of  diges- 
tion, like  fruit,  for  instance,  is  no  reason  that  it  is  unwholesome.  No 
one  would  say  that  meat  is  necessarily  more  wholesome  than  fruit 
because  it  is  more  easily  digested.  You  can  digest  meat  in  much  less 
time  than  you  can  digest  fruit,  and  yet  nobody  claims  that  fruits  are 
unwholesome. 

Mr.  FLANDEKS.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  to  ask  a  question  for 
information  ? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  You  said  that  the  melting  point  of  the  better  grades 
of  oleomargarine  is  the  same  as  that  at  which  butter  melts  ? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir;  according  to  Professor  Wiley's  experi- 
ments. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  I  would  like  to  make  a  double  question  of  this. 
What  constitutes  the  better  grades  of  oleomargarine?  What  is  the 
difference  between  the  poorer  grades  and  the  better  grades  as  to 
ingredients  ? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  There  is  very  little  difference  between  the  better 
grades  and  the  ordinary  grades  of  oleomargarine,  with  the  exception, 
as  I  understand,  of  the  use  of  butter.  A  larger  amount  of  butter  is 
used  in  the  more  expensive  grades  of  oleomargarine;  but  the  percent- 
age is  small. 

If  you  will  notice  on  page  200  of  the  report  of  the  House  committee, 
you  will  find  given  there  the  melting  point  of  the  different  grades  of 
butterine  which  were  submitted  to  Professor  Wiley.  You  will  find 
that  the  best  butter  melts  at  96.80  and  the  best  butterine  at  96.80 — pre- 
cisely the  same. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Are  those  Mr.  Wiley's  experiments  ? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EDSON.  I  beg  your  pardon;  that  was  not  made  by  Professor 
Wiley,  but  by  Professor  Schweitzer,  professor  of  agricultural  chem- 
istry and  chemist  to  experiment  station. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  The  fact  is,  gentlemen,  that  oleomargarine  is  a 


OLEOMAKGAEINE.  20  7 

purely  healthful  food  product,  desired  by  the  people  of  this  country. 
It  is  desired  by  the  citizens  of  Rhode  Island,  that  I  have  a  right  to  rep- 
resent; it  is  desired  by  the  people  who  live  in  Rhode  Island  and  work 
in  the  mills;  it  is  desired  by  tlie  poor  people  of  that  State,  who  can  not 
afford  to  pay  the  high  prices  for  butter,  and  you  have  no  moral  or 
constitutional  right,  in  my  judgment,  to  deprive  them  of  the  privilege 
of  buying  it  as  they  are  now  buying  it. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  You  speak  of  the  large  consumption  of  oleo  in 
Rhode  Island.  One  of  the  gentlemen  who  appeared  here  said  that  it 
was  about  8  pounds  per  capita  for  last  3rear. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  That  was  my  statement,  Senator. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Can  you  tell  me  what  the  consumption  of  butter 
per  capita  was  in  that  State  ? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  can  not  tell  you  the  consumption  of  butter  in 
any  locality  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Are  you  about  to  leave  the  health  question,  Mr. 
Tillinghast?  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  before  you  leave  that. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Have  you  any  evidence  as  to  any  physiological  tests 
as  to  digestion  of  oleomargarine  and  butter? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  have  the  tests  of  the  whole  State  of  Rhode 
Island. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  I  do  not  mean  that.  I  mean  a  scientific  experiment 
as  to  the  digestibility  of  butter  as  compared  with  the  digestibility  of 
oleomargarine.  The  testimony  you  have  given  there  is  simply  as  to 
the  melting  point  of  two  samples  by  the  particular  chemists. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  All  I  have  to  say  about  that  matter  is  that  if  that 
fact  has  not  been  established,  that  oleomargarine  is  a  perfectly  healthy 
food  product,  without  a  single  thing  in  it  that  is  deleterious,  it  seems 
to  me  that  before  this  discussion  goes  any  further  this  committee 
should  resolve  itself  at  least  into  a  committee  of  one  or  two  and  find 
put  whether  that  is  so  or  not;  but  the  evidence  throughout  the  world 
is  overwhelming  on  that  question. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  I  do  not  want  to  press  this  too  hard,  Mr.  Chairman, 
but  the  evidence  so  far  is  in  dispute.  We  brought  from  the  State  of 
New  York  and  left  here  with  this  committee  evidences  of  scientific 
experiments  in  digestion.  We  have  raised  the  question  here  as  to  the 
right  of  a  chemist  to  determine  a  physiological  question.  The  gentle- 
man is  making  a  very  nice  argument  from  his  point  of  view,  and  I 
like  it.  It  would  like  him  to  tell  me  if  he  knows  anything  on  that  sub- 
ject. He  has  submitted  here  the  melting  point  of  oleomargarine  and 
of  butter,  as  found  by  a  chemist,  of  some  particular  samples.  The 
evidence  we  submitted  here  was  of  oleomargarine  bought  on  the  open 
market  and  known  to  be  oleomargarine,  and  it  went  through  digestive 
experiments.  I  say  that  is  evidence  on  the  comparative  digestibility 
of  the  two,  and  I  ask  him,  so  long  as  he  is  trying  to  make  so  fair  an 
argument,  if  he  has  any  evidence  from  his  State  or  anywhere  relative 
to  the  comparative  digestibility  of  the  two,  because  if  a  sample  of 
oleomargarine  of  the  best  kind  were  submitted  to  a  chemist  it  is  hardly 
a  fair  illustration  of  the  oleomargarine  found  in  the  open  market,  and 
particularly  when  he  submits  it  only  as  to  the  one  proposition  of  its 
melting  point,  not  to  the  proposition  of  digestibility.  I  would  like 
the  gentleman  to  discuss  that  if  he  has  anything  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  If  I  have  not  taken  too  much  time,  I  would  like 


208 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


to  refer  the  committee  to  page  209  of  the  report  before  the  House 
Committee  on  Agriculture.     I  will  read  a  few  lines: 

[Extracts  from  pages  659,  660,  and  661  of  No.  7,  Vol.  XI,  of  United  States  Experiment  Station  Record, 

edited  by  E.  W.  Allen,  Ph.  D.] 

' '  The  relative  digestibility  of  several  sorts  of  fat  ~by  man.  I,  Margarin 
and  natural  butter ',  H.  Luhrig  (Ztschr.  Untersuch.  Nahr.  u.  Genussmtl. , 
0  (1899),  No.  6,  pp.  484-506).— The  author  reviews  the  literature  of 
the  subject  and  reports  results  of  4  experiments  on  the  digestibility 
of  margarin  and  butter,  made  with  a  healthy  man,  29  years  old,  weigh- 
ing 74  kg.  Holstein  butter  and  3  sorts  of  margarin  were  used,  called, 
according  to  their  quality,  No.  1, 2,  and  3.  The  tests  were  quite  similar, 
the  fat  in  each  case  forming  part  of  a  mixed  diet  of  meat,  bread,  vege- 
tables, etc.  The  composition  of  the  margarin  and  butter  was  determined 
and  the  fat  content  of  all  the  articles  of  diet. 

"The  average  results  of  the  tests  follow: 

Average  digestibility  of  margarin  and  butter. 


Fat. 

, 

In  daily 
food. 

In  daily 
feces. 

Digested. 

Margarin  No  1  consumed  with  mixed  diet  6  days 

Grams. 
138  35 

Grams. 
4  62 

J'f  r  ('/  lit. 

Margarin  No.  2,  consumed  with  mixed  diet  4  days  

118.  64 

3.91 

(.)C>.  70 

Margarin  No  3  consumed  with  mixed  diet  4  days  . 

112.  89 

3.46 

W  !>3 

Butter  consumed  with  mixed  diet  4  days 

111  79 

4  82 

').">  <i<) 

"If  corrections  are  made  for  the  fat  in  the  food  supplied  by  other 
materials  than  margarin  or  butter,  the  average  coefficients  of  digesti- 
bility in  the  4  tests  are  97.35,  97.39,  97.90,  and  96.53  percent,  respect- 
ively. The  author  studied  the  undigested  fat  in  the  4  experiments  and 
determined  the  amount  of  true  fat  in  the  undigested  ether  extract. 
Taking  account  of  these  values,  the  corrected  digestibility  of  the  mar- 
garin and  butter  fat  in  the  tests  reported  above  is  98.31,  98.25,  98.46, 
and  97.77  per  cent,  respectively.  In  the  author's  opinion  the  true 
undigested  fat  was  not  butter  or  margarin  fat,  and  accordingly  he 
believes  that  it  is  safe  to  conclude  that  butter  and  margarin  are  com- 
pletely digested.  (The  fat  recovered  in  the  feces  is  believed  to  be 
derived  from  the  digestive  juices  and  metabolic  products  produced  in 
the  body  during  the  experiment.)  If  it  is  insisted  upon  that  the  two 
kinds  of  fat  are  not  completely  digested,  it  must  still  be  granted  that 
as  regards  digestibility  they  are  practically  alike,  since  the  difference 
is  very  small.  *  *  * 

"From  a  study  of  the  chemical  characteristics  of  the  undigested  fat 
the  author  introduces  certain  corrections  in  the  above  values  and  con- 
cludes that  97.86  per  cent  of  the  butter  was  actually  digested  and  97.55 
per  cent  of  the  margarin.  From  a  physiological  standpoint  the  2  fats 
are  thought  to  be  completely  digestible  and  of  equal  value. " 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  would  like  to  inform  the  committee  that  that  article 
was  a  contribution  by  a  scientist  to  the  Agricultural  Department,  and 
that  report  is  from  the  experiment  station  records  of  the  Agricultural 
Department.  Here  is  a  similar  article  that  was  given  in  the  testimony 
before  this  committee  before  Christmas.  It  also  came  from  the  experi- 


OLEOMARGARINE.  209 

ment  station  of  the  Agricultural  Department,  and  I  would  like  to  ask 
Mr.  Tillinghast  to  read  the  conclusion  in  this  same  test. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  The  principal  conclusions  follow :  When  properly 
prepared,  inargarin  differs  but  little  from  natural  butter  in  chemical 
and  physical  properties.  On  an  average  93.5  to  96  per  cent  of  fat  was 
assimilated  when  margarin  was  consumed,  and  94  to  96  per  cent  when 
butter  formed  part  of  the  diet.  The  moderate  use  of  margarin  did  not 
cause  any  disturbance  of  the  digestive  tract. 

Mr.  FLANDEKS.  Mr.  Chairman.  1  do  not  want  to  interrupt  the  gen- 
tleman too  much,  but  I  would  like  to  ask  another  question. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  object  to  being  interrupted? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Not  in  the  least.     I  want  to  get  at  the  truth. 

Mr.  FLANDEKS.  That  simply  bears  out  the  contention  we  made  here 
yesterday 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  If  the  gentleman  is  going  to  make  a  speech  I 
object  to  his  interrupting  me. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  No;  I  want  to  put  it  so  that  we  can  understand  each 
other.  That  experiment,  as  I  understand  it,  simply  determined  how 
much  fat  was  taken  out  of  the  system,  out  of  the  material  put  through 
the  animal,  does  it  not  ?  Does  it  determine  the  physiological  effect  on 
the  animal,  or  the  length  of  time  or  exertion  of  the  animal  to  handle 
it?  That  is  the  bone  of  the  contention. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  take  it  that  the  statement  of  that  scientist,  say- 
ing there  is  very  little  difference  between  the  digestibility  of  butter 
and  butterine,  goes  for  the  opinion,  at  least,  of  the  scientist  who  made 
that  statement. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  If  we  are  going  to  leave  it  that  way,  then  I  would 
like  to  say  this:  We  admit  all  he  says.  We  make  that  assertion  our- 
selves, that  the  amount  taken  out  did  not  determine  the  question  of 
the  effect  upon  the  animal  nor  the  length  of  time  that  it  took.  Those 
are  the  only  two  essential  questions  that  we  contend  for — as  to  the 
effect  upon  the  system  and  the  time  it  takes  to  take  it  out. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Let  me  state  one  thing  more.  I  have  talked  with 
a  good  many  physicians  in  my  State  and  elsewhere  who  have  observed 
the  use  of  oleomargarine  carefully,  and  who  know  some  of  its  chemical 
properties,  and  who  know  some  of  its  effects  upon  patients  and  upon 
well  people;  and  the  universal  testimony  without  a  single  exception  is 
that  it  is  just  as  valuable  a  product  as  butter,  and  just  as  easily  digested 
by  both  sick  and  well  persons.  Of  course  that  statement  is  second- 
hand, hearsay;  but  it  is  a  statement  which  I  expect  to  be  believed. 

As  I  remarked,  if  it  is  possible  that  that  question  has  not  been  set- 
tled within  the  last  quarter  of  a  century,  since  oleomargarine  has  been 
upon  the  market,  if  it  is  possible  that  that  question  has  not  been  set- 
tled when  people  who  have  been  interested  in  dealing  in  oleomargarine 
and  putting  it  upon  the  market,  it  is  time  it  was  settled;  and  I  tell  you 
that  inasmuch  as  it  has  had  an  upward  movement,  onward  and  upward 
constantly  since  it  was  first  put  upon  the  market,  until  last  year  we 
had  a  production  of  107,000,000  pounds,  that  itself  is  an  argument 
that  it  must  be  a  healthful  product,  or  it  would  not  be  used.  It  has 
not  been  put  upon  the  market  surreptitiously.  It  has  not  been  put 
upon  the  market  in  deception  of  the  rights  of  people  who  were  to  use 
it  to  any  large  extent.  Why,  gentlemen,  the  oleomargarine  dealers 
and  manufacturers  of  this  country  have  endeavored  to  exhibit  their 
goods  wherever  they  had  the  opportunity — at  all  food  exhibits,  at 
county  fairs,  where  they  could  get  the  opportunity.  They  have  pre- 

S    Ron    9fU3 ^A. 


210  OLEOMARGARINE. 

sen  ted  their  goods,  put  them  before  the  people,  and  they  have  said  to 
the  people,  ""Here,  try  these  goods;  take  them  home.  Take  them  to 
your  wife.  Don't  tell  her  it  is  butter,  but  tell  her  it  is  butterine. 
Make  an  honest,  fair  test  of  it."  That  is  the  way  the  oleomargarine 
dealers  have  tried  to  introduce  their  product.  It  is  the  way  they  have 
introduced  it,  and  it  is  because  the}7  have  introduced  it  in  that  open, 
straightforward  manner  that  it  has  grown  in  favor  throughout  the 
United  States.  And  1  say  because  it  has  grown  in  favor  it  must  be  an 
article  which  the  people  desire,  and  one  which  scientists,  doctors,  and 
chemists  have  indorsed  and  will  indorse,  whatever  may  be  said  to  the 
contrary  by  anyone  who  has  not  made  that  investigation  which  it  is 
necessary  to  make  to  find  out  whether  it  is  an  article  that  is  really 
deleterious  to  health. 

Why,  gentlemen,  while  I  am  on  this  point  I  want  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  an  advertisement  that  I  have  seen  I  think  a  thousand  times.  It 
is  very  short,  and  I  will  read  it: 

"Have  you  ever  seen  any  butterine?  Did  you  ever  try  it  on  your 
table  or  for  cooking  ?  If  not,  we  ask  you  to  do  so.  Try  it.  Take  home 
a  pound.  Don't  tell  your  family  it  is  butter.  Tell  them  it  is  butterine. 
Show  it  to  your  family  physician.  Ask  his  opinion  about  it.  All  we 
ask  is  a  fair  show,  and  the  truth." 

That  is  all,  so  far  as  the  oleomargarine  industry  is  carried  on  in  Rhode 
Island,  at  least,  and  in  the  East,  that  the  oleo  dealers  have  done.  They 
have  tried  to  put  their  product  on  the  market  honestly  and  fairly. 
They  want  people  to  use  it  for  what  it  is,  and  for  nothing  more  than 
what  it  is;  and  I  tell  you  when  people  come  here  and  say  they  must 
have  a  law  which  will  tax  that  product  at  10  cents  a  pound  because  it 
is  sold  for  butter,  and  because  no  law  can  be  framed,  as  they  say,  that 
will  prevent  its  being  sold — they  asked  this  law  to  be  passed  because 
they  say  no  law  can  be  framed  whereby  it  will  be  sold  for  what  it  is 
except  this  taxation  law — you  know,  as  intelligent  men,  that  that  can 
not  be  the  fact,  and  that  that  can  not  be  true.  Frame  a  law,  if  you 
please,  and  no  one  will  take  any  exception,  no  matter  how  strenuous 
you  make  it,  no  matter  how  many  safeguards  you  may  put  around  it. 
You  may  say  that  every  pound  of  it  shall  be  put  in  a  piece  of  paper  of 
a  certain  color;  that  it  shall  have  all  the  printing  on  it  that  is  necessary 
to  inform  everyone  as  to  its  contents;  and  that  it  shall  only  be  sold  in 
that  original  package.  Now,  if  they  are  honest,  if  they  mean  what 
they  say,  what  objection  would  there  be  to  such  a  law  as  that?  They 
tell  you,  gentlemen,  and  they  have  told  me,  that  they  only  care  to  stop 
the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter.  If  so,  gentlemen,  it  can  be 
arranged  so  that  it  can  not  be  sold  for  anything  except  oleo,  by  the 
proper  law. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  have  often  wondered  where  the  swindle  comes 
in.  There  have  been  prosecutions  in  this  city  of  grocers  for  selling 
oleomargarine  for  butter,  and  some  of  the  grocers  claimed  that  they 
were  swindled  in  buying  it.  The  public  has  claimed  that  they  were 
swindled  in  buying  it;  and  you  seem  to  have  laid  it  off  on  the  man 
who  takes  it  home  and  swindles  his  wife  with  it. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  would  sa}7  that  that  undoubtedly  has  happened, 
that  men  have  taken  it  home  to  their  wives  and  have  not  told  them 
anything  about  it.  1  have  heard  of  many  such  cases,  and  I  have  no 
doubt  you  have.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  can  not  see  how  the  retail 
dealer  can  be  deceived,  because  he  buys  necessarily  in  the  original 


OLEOMARGARINE.  211 

package.  This  has  stamps  on  it,  and  everything  to  apprise  him  of 
what  he  is  buying,  so  that  it  is  not  possible  that  the  butter  dealer  in 
Washington  or  elsewhere  could  ever  be  deceived  as  to  what  he  is  buy- 
ing. The  retail  dealer  buys  a  10-pound  package  or  a  60-pound  pack- 
age, or  whatever  it  may  be,  of  oleomargarine  in  the  tub.  The  retail 
dealer  under  the  present  system  can  cut  out  of  that  tub  anything  that 
his  customer  desires.  Well,  here  is  this  tub  standing  up  here,  we  will 
say,  on  the  shelf.  The  cover  is  off,  and  you  look  at  it,  and  it  looks 
like  butter;  and  the  only  thing  to  apprise  the  customer  of  the  fact 
that  it  is  oleo  would  be  the  stamp  on  the  tub,  which  may  be  laid  down 
or  on  the  side  or  may  not  be  called  to  his  attention.  He  comes  in  and 
calls  for,  say,  two  pounds  of  butter,  and  if  the  retail  dealer  is  a  dis- 
honest man,  and  desires  to  palm  oleo  off  on  him,  why  of  course  he 
would  cut  it  out  of  that  tub  and  sell  it  to  the  customer. 

Senator  DOLLIVEK.  Then  how  could  your  scheme  of  wrapping  a  deli- 
cately colored  paper  around  it  have  that  effect? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  would  not  permit  it  to  be  sold  in  the  original 
package  in  tubs.  I  would  have  the  original  package  a  small  package 
of,  say,  five  pounds,  and  not  permit  it  to  be  sold  in  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  now  sold. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  It  seems  to  me  if  it  was  only  identified  by  a 
paper,  the  man  would  take  the  paper  off  and  put  another  paper  on. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  No ;  because  it  could  be  stamped,  and  it  could  be 
provided  that  it  should  only  be  made  in  prints,  and  it  could  also  be 
provided  that  the  word  "Oleomargarine"  should  be  printed  into  the 
substance  itself. 

Senator  DOLLIVEK.  Even  that  is  not  a  very  permanent  record. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Well,  that  with  the  cover  itself  would  be  suffi- 
cient, it  seems  to  me. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  If  the  dealer  was  trying  to  swindle,  he  could 
take  the  imprint  out  of  the  butter. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  It  strikes  me  that  if  the  laws  were  enforced  as 
they  should  be,  and  as  they  possibly  would  be,  there  would  be  very 
little  difficulty  and  very  little  fraud  practiced,  if  you  had  the  most 
stringent  regulations. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  have  not  heard  lately  any  charges  of  fraud 
against  those  manufacturing  the  article. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  No;  there  is  undoubtedly  very  little  fraud  on  the 
part  of  the  manufacturer.  I  have  not  heard  of  any  for  a  good  many 
years,  and  I  can  conceive  of  no  temptation  on  the  part  of  the  manu- 
facturer to  sell  his  article  for  anything  except  for  what  it  is,  for  he  is 
not  allowed  to  keep  anything  else  in  his  factory,  and  his  factory  is 
subject  to  the  inspection  of  the  United  States  revenue  officers  daily. 
If  he  should  attempt  to  put  goods  out  of  his  establishment  as  butter, 
the  penalties  are  so  severe  that  he  would  be  deterred  from  doing  so. 

MR.  KNIGHT.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question  about  the  present  law. 
Does  not  the  present  law  require  the  retailer  to  stamp  the  article? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  1  am  not  familiar  with  the  retail  trade. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes;  it  does. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  you  will  permit  me  to  explain.  The  retailer  is  per- 
mitted to  sell  in  quantities  not  exceeding  10  pounds.  He  must  take 
up  his  own  package,  and  stamp  the  package  with  his  name,  his  address, 
and  the  word  "  oleomargarine,"  and  the  quantity  contained  therein. 
That  is  the  present  law.  The  retail  dealer  sells  his  goods  in  that 
manner. 


212  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Will  you  allow  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  make  an 
explanation  here? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  The  present  law,  as  it  will  be  seen,  permits  the  retail 
dealer  to  make  a  large  original  package,  say  60  pounds  a  tub,  and  from 
that  he  can  retail  it  out  in  small  quantities  by  breaking  the  original 
package.  The  Wadsworth  bill,  which  was  favored  by  the  minority  of 
the  Committee  on  Agriculture  in  the  House,  provided  that  all  oleomar- 
garine should  be  put  up  in  1  and  2  pound  packages;  that  each  package 
should  contain  on  the  material  itself,  imprinted  in  it,  the  word 
"Oleomargarine;"  and  that  each  package  should  be  wrapped  sepa- 
rately, and  should  be  sold  separately  to  the  purchaser;  that  on  each 
package  there  should  be  the  stamp  of  the  Government  and  a  paper  also 
wrapped  around  that  with  the  word  "Oleomargarine"  printed  on  it  in 
large  letters,  to  be  regulated  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Reve- 
nue. So  that  while  now  the  merchant  may  fix  up  a  package  and  sell  it 
so  as  to  deceive,  if  you  want  to  compel  him  to  sell  it  for  what  it  is,  take 
the  provision  of  the  Wadsworth  bill  and  require  each  package  to  have 
a  stamp  engraved  in  it  and  wrapped  together,  and  do  not  allow  the 
merchant  to  break  that  package  at  all,  but  let  it  go  into  the  hands  of 
the  consumer  with  the  stamp  on  it  just  as  it  comes  from  the  manufac- 
turing establishment.  Then  if  the  consumer  wants  to  take  it  home 
and  deceive  his  wife  with  it,  he  will  have  to  cut  off  the  word 
' '  Oleomargarine. " 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  May  I  ask  Judge  Springer  one  question  in  regard  to 
that? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Does  not  that  same  bill  make  that  1-pound  pack- 
age the  original  importer's  package  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  provides  that  1  and  2  pound  packages  must  com- 
prise all  of  the  output  of  the  factory,  and  that  they  must  be  put  in  that 
shape,  and  can  only  be  sold  in  those  packages  by  the  retail  merchant. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  My  question  is,  Did  not  that  bill  provide  distinctly 
that  they  should  be  considered  an  original  importer's  package  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Certainly.  That  was  to  be  considered  as  an 
importer's  package,  and  the  sale  was  confined  to  those  packages  so  as 
to  prevent  the  retail  merchant  from  imposing  on  his  customer;  so  that 
it  went  into  the  hands  of  the  consumer  he  was  obliged  to  know  and 
could  not  help  knowing  that  it  was  oleomargarine.  After  that  the  law 
leaves  it  with  the  head  of  the  family  or  the  wife  or  whoever  purchases 
it — the  hotel  proprietor,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  How  about  the  guest  of  the  hotel  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  If  the  guest  of  the  hotel  can  not  discover  the  differ- 
ence he  is  not  robbed. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  Chair*  hopes  the  gentleman  will  be 
allowed  to  finish. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  will  say  that  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  and 
1  do  not  know  but  in  many  other  States,  the  law  provides  that  if  hotels, 
restaurants,  and  boarding  houses  do  use  oleomargarine  on.  the  table, 
they  must  apprise  the  guests  of  the  fact  that  they  do  use  it.  With 
that  regulation  it  seems  to  me  there  can  be  very  little  fraud  practiced. 

Senator  MONEY.  Can  an  ordinary  guest  tell  what  he  is  eating  ?  Can 
you  tell  whether  you  are  eating  oleomargarine  or  butter? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir. 


OLEOM  AEG  AKIKE.  213 

Senator  MONEY.  I  can  not. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  In  response  to  your  question,  Mr.  Money,  1 
should  say  that  the  ordinary  person  would  not  distinguish  between  a 
nice  specimen  of  oleomargarine  and  the  ordinary  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  If  they  can  not  tell  the  difference,  and  they  are  both 
healthful,  what  are  the  odds? 

Senator  FOSTER.  And  a  nice  specimen  of  oleomargarine  has  more 
butter  in  it. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  FOSTER.  So  that,  the  more  butter  you  get  in  it,  the  better 
the  oleo. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  This  matter  has  been  before  Congress  several 
times,  and  a  committee  of  the  Senate,  the  Committee  on  Manufactures, 
I  think  it  was,  investigated  this  very  question  under  the  pure-food 
law.  Without  going  into  their  report  to  any  extent,  but  as  substan- 
tiating what  every  committee,  it  seems  to  me,  must  find  if  they  investi- 
gate it  carefully,  what  every  man  must  find  if  he  investigates  it  caref  ully , 
with  the  desire  or  intention  of  getting  at  the  truth  of  the  matter,  I 
will  read  what  they  find: 

"The  committee  finds  from  the  evidence  before  it  that  the  product 
known  commercially  as  oleomargarine  is  healthful  and  nutritious,  and 
that  no  additional  legislation  is  necessary." 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  this  is  res  adjudicata  for  this  committee, 
but  it  is  some  evidence,  at  least,  that  a  committee  of  this  Senate,  after 
an  investigation  of  this  whole  question,  did  find  that  it  was  a  health- 
ful and  nutritious  article;  and  it  seems  to  me,  gentlemen,  that  if  one 
question  could  be  proven  by  such  a  preponderance  of  evidence  as  to 
permit  of  no  shadow  of  doubt  in  the  mind  of  anyone  that  it  has  been 
shown  and  established,  it  is  that  oleomargarine  is  healthful  and  nutri- 
tious and  that  it  is  folly  to  attempt  to  raise  any  question  on  that  score. 

I  take  it,  gentlemen,  that  you  will  find  that  as  proven  and  that  the 
only  question  that  will  disturb  your  minds  at  all  will  be  whether  there 
is  any  legislation  needed — whether,  under  the  guise  of  a  revenue  meas- 
ure, the  circumstances  are  such  and  the  expedients  are  such  as  to  war- 
rant your  extending  the  arm  of  this  Government  to  assist  the  laws  of 
the  States  in  preventing  oleo  being  sold  as  butter.  1  have  shown  to 
you  that  it  can  make  but  very  little  difference,  if  any,  to  the  farmer 
whether  that  is  done  or  not;  but  it  makes  a  vast  difference  to  the  cap- 
ital employed  and  the  men  employed  whether  you  in  effect  confiscate 
my  property  and  destroy  an  established  industry.  It  makes  a  differ- 
ence of  a  great  many  millions  of  dollars,  and  besides  it  is  going  so  far 
as  to  destroy  an  industry  which  came  into  existence  legitimately  and 
fairly,  and  which  desires  to  remain  in  the  same  manner. 

Now,  gentlemen,  1  do  not  anticipate  that  such  an  act  of  injustice 
will  be  done  by  the  United  States  Senate.  I  do  not  anticipate  that 
this  bill  will  ever  become  a  law,  but  I  have  found  many  times  to  my 
sorrow  that  what  appeared  very  clear  to  me  was  not  always  so  clear 
to  others;  and  so,  gentlemen,  there  is  one  thing  that  I  want  to  call 
your  attention  to,  if  by  any  possiblity  a  bill  of  this  character  should 
become  a  law,  and  that  is  the  language  of  the  proviso,  on  the  seventh 
line  of  the  second  page: 

' '  That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  permit  any  State  to 
forbid  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  a  separate  and  dis- 
tinct form,  and  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real 


214  OLEOMARGARINE. 

character,  free  from  coloration  or  ingredient  that  causes  it  to  look 
like  butter." 

The  words  I  complain  of  are  the  words  following  the  word  u  colora- 
tion." If  it  stopped  there,  then  there  would  be  no  opportunity  to  put 
any  coloration  into  the  oleomargarine.  It  would  have  to  be  made 
white  if  it  were  made  at  all,  but  there  are  added  there  these  words: 
uor  ingredient  that  causes  it  to  look  like  butter."  With  those  words 
in  there,  they  may  be  a  disturbing  element.  We  claim  that  every 
ingredient  that  goes  into  oleomargarine  and  that  makes  oleomargarine, 
whether  color  is  used  or  not,  is  an  ingredient  that  makes  it  look  like 
butter.  We  claim  that  oleo  oil  looks  like  butter,  some  shades  of  but- 
ter. It  was  explained  to  you  j^esterday  by  a  gentleman  who  knew  all 
about  the  business,  that  butter  is  of  many  shades,  and  of  course  that 
is  common  knowledge.  I  have  seen  butter  that  is  just  as  white  as 
white  oleomargarine,  and  Senator  Dolliver  this  morning  said  that  not 
very  long  ago  he  had  seen  in  New  York  within  a  day  or  two  some 
white  butter.  Now  of  course  if  we  make  white  oleomargarine,  we  use 
ingredients  that  look  like  the  butter  the  Senator  saw.  The  dairy 
interests  do  not  desire  a  prohibitory  law  if  they  are  honest,  and  I  con- 
cede honesty  to  them.  I  think  they  are  misguided.  They  are  willing, 
they  say,  as  I  understand,  that  we  should  make  all  the  white  oleomar- 
garine that  we  can  sell.  Is  not  that  so  ? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Very  good.  If  that  is  so  there  is  no  need,  if  you 
please,  of  the  words  following  the  word  "coloration"  in  that  section. 
And,  gentlemen,  if  you  forget  everything  else  that  I  have  said — and  I 
do  not  flatter  myself  that  you  will  remember  very  much  of  it — please 
remember  this,  that  I  suggest  to  you  that  if  by  any  possibility  you 
should  consider  any  part  of  this  bill  favorably,  you  will  strike  out  that 
part  of  that  section,  because  otherwise  we  shall  be  right  up  against 
this  same  proposition  and  have  the  same  prosecutions  whether  we  make 
white  oleomargarine  or  whether  we  make  colored  oleomargarine, 
because  every  ingredient  will  make  it  look  like  butter,  and  perhaps 
make  it  look  more  like  what  is  generally  spoken  of  as  natural  butter 
than  it  would  if  we  colored  it.  I  presume  there  is  more  butter  made 
in  the  twelve  months  of  the  year  that  would  be  white  if  no  coloring 
matter  were  used,  or  if  not  white  a  very  light  shade  of  yellow,  than 
there  is  made  of  colored  butter.  You  must  remember  that  oleomarga- 
rine has  considerable  of  a  yellowish  tint  by  the  use  of  cotton-seed  oil, 
and  the  only  thing  white  that  goes  into  the  oleo  is  the  leaf  lard  and 
the  milk,  and  of  course  the  milk  has  a  slight  color.  Then  we  use  a 
quantity  of  butter.  That  has  a  slight  color.  So  that  there  would  be 
many  of  the  ingredients  that  would  cause  it  to  look  like  some  butter. 

So,  gentlemen,  take  care  of  that  question.  Be  honest  with  us  and 
fair  with  us,  and  do  not  put  us  to  the  difficulty  of  any  question  before 
the  courts  that  we  are  using  ingredients  that  cause  oleomargarine  to 
look  like  butter,  because  it  is  not  needed  in  this  case;  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  gentlemen  representing  the  dairy  interests  themselves,  in 
fairness,  should  say  they  have  no  objection  to  those  words  being 
stricken  out. 

Gentlemen,  I  thank  you  for  your  attention.  If  I  have  said  anything 
that  I  ought  not  to  have  said,  I  beg  you  will  overlook  it,  and  if  I  have 
left  unsaid  some  things  which  I  should  have  said,  I  beg  you  to  supply 
them. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  215 


The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  now  ten  minutes  of  12  o'clock.  I 
think  the  committee  will  have  to  take  its  recess. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Mr.  Chairman,  will  you  allow  me  to  make  a  short 
statement  before  you  retire? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  sir. 


ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  OF  FRANCIS  W.  LESTRADE. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Mr.  Chairman,  after  the  session  yesterday  after- 
noon I  was  approached  by  a  member  of  the  dairy  association  who 
seemed  to  have  a  misunderstanding — I  do  not  mean  so  far  as  the  com- 
mittee was  concerned — of  the  remarks  I  made  in  relation  to  the  prices 
of  butter;  and  perhaps  the  committee  might  also  have  had  an  erroneous 
impression  or  a  wrong  impression,  or  did  not  understand  it  exactly. 
It  will  take  me  but  a  few  minutes  to  repeat  what  I  said,  and  if  any 
of  the  dairy  gentlemen  here  can  show  me  where  I  am  in  the  wrong,  I 
shall  be  very  glad  to  have  them  do  so.  If  they  are  silent  we  will  take 
it  that  they  agree  with  me  perfectly  in  my  statement. 

I  said  yesterday  that  the  cheapest  butter  in  this  country,  the  pack- 
ing stock,  which  I  endeavored  to  make  plain  to  you  what  it  was,  is  put 
away  in  large  quantities  in  cold  storage  during  the  last  part  of  May 
and  in  the  months  of  June  and  July,  as  the  lowest  price  for  fresh 
butter  is  reached  at  that  time  of  the  year.  That  is  gathered  in  from  the 
Western  farmers  as  I  explained.  During  these  early  months  in  1899 
it  was  put  in  cold  storage  at  a  price  as  low  as  1LJ-,  12,  12-J-,  and  13 
cents. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Let  me  understand.  Is  that  the  price  at  the 
storage  point,  or  what  the  packer  got? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  am  now  quoting  prices  in  New  York,  freight  all 
paid.  It  is  gathered  up  by  these  different  men ,  put  into  cars,  packed  into 
barrels,  tierces,  and  tubs,  and  brought  into  New  York.  I  am  quoting 
prices  from  the  New  York  standpoint.  There  is  a  difference  of  about 
three-quarters  of  a  cent  to  a  cent  in  Chicago.  This  is  put  in  New  York 
at  a  cost  of  12  to  12J  cents  to  the  butter  men,  and  as  high  as  13. 
Gentlemen,  it  was  sold  out  by  the  butter  men  generally  throughout 
the  country  at  a  profit  of  from  3  to  6  cents  a  pound  in  the  fall  and 
winter.  It  was  sold  as  high  as  18  cents — this  cheap,  common,  roll 
butter  that  is  made  in  the  commonest  manner  possible.  Those  were 
the  figures  it  was  sold  at — at  a  very  handsome  profit  by  the  dairymen, 
and  by  the  butter  men  interested  in  the  butter,  particularly  in  this  bill. 

What  we  call  fancy  extra  creamery  butter  was  put  into  cold  storage 
in  New  York  city  and  other  points  at  from  16J  to  18i  cents.  The 
butter  men  kept  this  butter  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  and  it  sold  out 
as  high  as  30  cents.  A  gentleman  from  Chicago,  who,  I  believe,  repre- 
sents the  dairy  interests  here,  was  surprised  at  that  statement,  and 
asked  me  the  q  uestion,  you  remember,  ' '  Was  it  sold  at  30  cents  ? "  1 
said,  " Yes, sir;  it  was  sold  at  30  cents."  He,  apparently,  did  not 
know  that,  and  yet  he  should  have  known  it.  There  was  a  profit  of 
nearly  50  per  cent  for  the  butter  men. 

Senator  FOSTER.  That  is  between  the  highest  and  the  lowest? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  From  the  highest  to  the  lowest. 

Senator  FOSTER.  During  the  year? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  In  six  months'  time.     So  that  you  can  see,  gentlemen, 


216  OLEOMARGAEINE. 

we  are  not  poverty  stricken.  We  are  not  going  to  the  poorhouse,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  said  yesterday.  Oleomargarine  is 
not  wiping  us  out,  but,  on  the  contrary,  we  are  making  better  profits 
every  year,  according  to  my  statements,  which  can  not  be  contradicted. 

I  will  say  that  as  far  as  this  year  is  concerned,  this  last  May  on 
account  of  the  high  prices  butter  started  in  from  18i  to  19  cents,  these 
fancy  extra  creameries.  They  were  put  in  cold  storage  during  the 
months  of  June  and  July,  and  they  have  been  sold  out  during  this  Sep- 
tember and  October  and  up  to  within  two  or  three  weeks  as  high  as  24 
cents,  making  a  handsome  profit  of  3  to  4  cents  a  pound.  To-day, 
although  the  market  is  depressed,  although  the  butter  market  is  declin- 
ing, as  it  usually  does  in  January,  you  can  sell  your  best  fancy  extra 
creamery  butter,  if  you  have  it — I  am  speaking  now  of  old  June  but- 
ter— at  23  cents.  These  gentlemen  will  probably  say  you  can  not  do 
that.  The  butter  you  can  not  sell  at  23  cents  is  butter  that  has  been 
bought  by  speculators,  not  knowing  what  the}?'  are  buying,  and  put  in 
cold  storage,  and  now  when  they  turn  it  out  they  find  it  is  poor  and 
old  and  has  no  flavor;  but  if  the  butter  is  made  properly,  although  it 
is  an  old  butter,  it  still  has  an  elegant  flavor  and  taste  and  smell. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Is  that  old  butter  all  sent  to  Washington  ? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  do  not  know  much  about  that. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  judge  it  is  from  my  difficulty  in  getting  good 
butter. 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  I  desire  to  ask  the  dairymen  here  whether  they  have 
been  approached  in  regard  to  a  butter  trust.  I  have,  and  the  moment 
that  this  bill  is  passed  there  will  be  the  biggest  butter  trust  that  ever 
was  organized  in  these  United  States.  If  this  bill  does  go  through,  I 
shall  be  one  of  them  to  go  in  if  I  can. 

All  I  ask  of  you,  gentlemen,  is,  if  I  have  shown  you  in  any  way  that 
these  facts  are  as  I  state,  you  will  give  them  consideration;  that  you 
will  explain  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  and  let  the  people  of  the 
United  States  know  what  we  are  doing  in  the  dairy  interests;  that  we 
are  not  poverty  stricken;  and  let  the  people  be  the  judge  whether  the 
dairy  interest  of  the  United  States  is  in  such  a  poor,  forlorn  condition. 

The  committee  (at  12  o'clock  meridian)  took  a  recess  until  2.30  p.  m. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  committee  resumed  its  session. 

Present:  Senator Hansbrough  (acting chairman);  also,  Hon.  William 
W.  Grout,  a  Representative  from  the  State  of  Vermont;  Hon.  W.  D. 
Hoard,  ex-governor  of  Wisconsin  and  president  of  the  National  Dairy 
Union;  C.  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Union;  Hon. 
William  M.  Springer,  of  Springfield,  111.,  representing  the  National 
Livestock  Association;  FranK  W.  Tillinghast,  representing  the  Ver- 
mont Manufacturing  Company,  of  Providence,  R.  I.;  Charles  E. 
Schell,  representing  the  Ohio  Butterine  Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio; 
W.  E.  Miller,  representing  the  Armour  Packing  Company,  of  Kansas 
City,  Mo.,  and  John  F.  Jelke,  representing  Braun  &  Fitts,  Chicago, 
111.,  and  others. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  understand,  gentlemen,  that  an  arrange- 
ment was  made  for  the  hearing,  this  afternoon,  of  the  gentlemen  who 
represent  the  dairy  interests  of  Pennsylvania.  Is  that  correct? 

SEVERAL  GENTLEMEN.  Correct. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  how  many  of  you  are  here  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  the  attorney  for  the  Pure 
Butter  Protective  Association  of  Pennsylvania,  and  we  have  four  dif- 


OLEOMARGARINE.  217 

ferent  interests  from  Philadelphia  and  Pennsylvania  represented  here. 
Those  interests  are  the  creamery  men,  the  wholesale  dealers  in  butter, 
the  farmers,  and  the  retail  dealers.  If  your  committee  will  permit,  I 
would  like  to  suggest  that  you  allow  us  a  certain  time,  and  let  each 
of  these  gentlemen,  in  five  or  ten  minutes,  give  the  facts  from  the 
point  of  view  of  his  own  specialty.  Then  I,  as  attorney,  will  round 
up  the  matter  in  such  time  as  you  will  permit  me  to  occupy. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  how  much  time  will  you  want  altogether  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  think  we  ought  to  have  at  least  an  hour  and  a 
half,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  will  be  agreeable. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  will  permit  me  I  will  say,  as 
I  stated  before,  that  we  have  four  different  interests  from  Pennsylva- 
nia here  represented.  Each  one  of  these  interests  will  be  represented 
by  a  speaker,  who  will  occupy,  say,  about  ten  minutes  of  time,  and 
who  will  show  how  this  bill  affects  his  special  interest,  and  why  that 
special  interest  desires  the  passage  and  enactment  of  the  bill. 

The  first  speaker  will  be  Mr.  Habecker,  of  Philadelphia,  a  wholesale 
butter  merchant. 


STATEMENT  OF  JOHN  J.  HABECKER,  BUTTER  MERCHANT,  PHILA- 
DELPHIA, PA. 

Mr.  HABECKER.  1  have  not  much  to  say,  gentlemen.  I  am  not  an 
orator,  nor  am  I  a  paid  attorney.  I  have  been  in  the  butter  business 
about  twenty-one  years,  and  have  gone  through  this  whole  controversy 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  and  I  understand  that  this.  Grout  bill 
is  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine 
to  sell  it  for  what  it  is. 

That  is  all  we  desire.  We  are  not  afraid  of  honest  competition  in 
oleomargarine  or  anything  else  that  may  come  on  the  market.  But 
our  experience  has  been,  from  the  beginning,  that  these  men  who 
manufacture  oleomargarine,  and  the  men  who  sell  it,  do  it  in  a  way  to 
deceive  the  public  into  buying  it.  In  all  my  experience  I  know  of 
only  a  very  few  cases  where  people  have  bought  oleomargarine  know- 
ing what  it  is,  except  in  the  case  of  boarding-house  or  hotel  keepers. 

In  the  very  beginning,  allow  me  to  say  that  we  come  from  a  city  and 
a  State  where  we  claim  that  we  have  the  finest  butter  in  the  country — 
that  is,  Philadelphia  and  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  Let  us  take  the 
county  of  Bucks,  for  instance.  There  it  has  been  the  custom  for  years 
and  years  for  the  people  to  make  their  dairy  butter  up  into  round 
prints  and  pack  it  up  in  a  certain  way,  and  the  people  have  been 
accustomed  to  using  their  butter  in  that  way.  Now,  these  oleomar- 
garine dealers  (who,  from  what  I  can  gather  here  and  from  the  evi- 
dence that  I  have  heard  at  different  times,  are  trying  to  make  you 
believe  that  they  are  honest  in  their  dealings  and  that  they  want  to 
have  their  goods  sold  for  what  they  are)  made  up  their  product  in 
semblance  of  Bucks  County  dairy  prints  to  suit  a  certain  class  and  ship 
them  into  our  market.  They  know  at  the  time  that  they  are  making 
it  into  that  style  of  print  in  order  that  they  may  aid  and  abet  and  help 
the  retailer  of  oleomargarine  to  sell  those  goods  for  what  they  are 
made  to  imitate  and  counterfeit. 

Then  we  have  another  section  of  our  State,  up  in  Bradford  County, 


218  OLEOMARGARINE. 

for  instance.  There  it  has  been  the  custom  of  the  people  to  have  their 
butter  packed  in  what  they  call  Bradford  County  tubs  or  half  firkins. 
Now  then,  in  order  to  suit  the  people-  in  that  section  of  the  country 
and  deceive  them  they  have  Bradford  County  tubs  made,  and  pack 
their  oleomargarine  into  tubs  of  that  kind  and  ship  it  into  that  dis- 
trict, and  the  oleomargarine  is  sold  there  by  retailers  for  Bradford 
County  butter.  That  is  part  of  the  history  of  the  past. 

Then  we  have  another  section  of  the  State,  that  adjacent  to  Pitts- 
burg.  Up  until  a  very  few  years  ago  it  was  the  custom  all  through 
the  State  of  Ohio  for  the  farmers  to  make  up  their  butter  principally 
into  rolls;  and  then  they  would  take  a  little  paddle  and  mark  it  on  the 
top,  and  pack  the  rolls  into  a  60-pound  tub — a  thin-staved  tub.  And 
in  order  that  the  oleomargarine  people  might  deceive  the  people  of 
Pittsburg  into  buying  their  stuff  for  pure  butter  they  have  tubs  made 
in  semblance  of  the  Ohio  tubs  and  then  they  have  their  oleomargarine 
made  in  semblance  of  the  Ohio  dairy  rolls,  with  the  little  marks  on  the 
top,  and  packed  with  the  same  sort  of  cloth  on  top,  and  have  it  shipped 
into  Pittsburg — knowing  at  the  same  time  they  do  that  they  are  helping 
the  retailer  to  deceive  the  unsuspecting  public  into  buying  an  imitation 
of  Ohio  rolls  for  the  pure  Ohio  rolls. 

Now,  later  on,  as  we  go  on  in  years,  the  manufacture  of  butter  has 
changed;  and  they  have  got  to  making  it  more  generally  in  creameries 
and  the  dairies  have  been  dropping  out.  The  creameries  through  our 
State  have  been  in  the  habit  of  making  up  their  butter  into  square 
prints,  with  a  sheaf,  I  think,  or  some  sort  of  a  monogram,  stamped  on 
them.  In  order  to  compete  with  that  these  oleomargarine  manufac- 
turers throughout  the  country,  who  have  been  telling  you  here  how 
honest  they  are  and  how  it  is  their  purpose  to  have  the  stuff  sold  for 
what  it  is,  make  it  up  into  square  pound  prints  and  ship  it  into  our 
market,  knowing  that  if  it  is  sold  in  that  way  it  is  sold  for  Penns}Tl- 
vania  creamery  prints. 

That  has  been  the  history  of  this  matter  all  through  in  our  State. 
I  do  not  know  how  it  is  in  other  States;  but  in  the  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, not  only  is  the  oleomargarine  made  in  semblance  of  our  different 
styles  of  butter,  dairy  and  solid-packed  and  rolls  and  prints,  but  it  is 
put  up  in  packages  so  that  there  is  no  question  about  the  disposition 
of  it. 

Now,  I  personally  went  into  the  butter  business  in  1878.  I  stood 
behind  the  counter,  and  retailed  butter  to  the  amount  of  $35,000  a 
year;  and  I  have  yet  the  first  person  to  come  to  me  and  ask  me  for 
oleomargarine — that  is,  a  private  individual.  My  experience  in  the 
business  all  through  is  that  oleomargarine  is  a  fraud  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end;  that  it  is  made  in  the  semblance  of  butter  and  is  sold 
for  butter.  There  is  only  one  thing  that  we  desire  in  the  line  of  legis- 
lation, and  that  is  that  such  a  law  may  be  enacted  as  will  compel  these 
"honest"  oleomargarine  manufacturers  and  dealers  to  sell  the  goods 
for  what  they  are.  We  are  not  at  all  afraid  of  that  kind  of  competi- 
tion— not  at  all.  And  if  any  one  will  take  the  trouble  to  hunt  up  the 
business  from  the  factory  to  the  consumer,  he  will  find  beyond  any 
question  of  doubt  in  his  mind  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  stupendous 
frauds  that  was  ever  fostered  upon  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth. 
There  is  not  any  question  about  that.  I  know  that  it  is  insidiously 
covered  up.  I  know  that.  It  is  a  lie  from  the  beginning.  I  am  not  afraid 
to  make  that  statement,  because  I  know  it  to  be  a  fact;  and  I  can  make  it 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  219 

honestly.  You  can  take  all  the  branches  of  the  combined  agricultural 
business  of  the  country,  and  put  them  together,  and  you  will  find  that 
the  whole  combination  is  not  as  corrupting  in  its  influence  as  oleomar- 
garine. 

Now,  I  can  show  you  very  clearly  how  that  is.  For  instance,  take 
a  market  like  some  of  our  markets  in  Philadelphia.  Here  is  a  man 
who  buys  oleomargarine  to  sell.  Let  us  say  that  he  has  the  privilege 
of  doing  it.  He  buys  oleomargarine;  and  a  person  comes  and  asks, 
"Is  that  pure  butter?"  He  says,  "No,  that  is  oleomargarine;"  and 
the  person  leaves  and  goes  to  another  stand.  He  inquires  of  that 
dealer  whether  what  he  sees  is  pure  butter.  The  dealer  has  oleomar- 
garine on  his  stand,  but  he  is  unscrupulous,  and  he  says  that  it  is  pure 
butter.  Then  the  party  buys  it,  believing  it  to  be  pure  butter. 

Now,  under  those  conditions  the  balance  of  the  men  in  that  market 
have  either  got  to  become  corrupt  and  liars  themselves,  or  they  have 
got  to  get  out  of  the  business;  and  the  temptation  is  strongly  in  favor 
of  their  becoming  liars.  So  that  if  you  follow  the  thing  up  closely, 
you  will  find  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  corrupting  things  that  has  ever 
been  fostered  upon  the  people.  We  are  honest  in  this  matter.  I  will 
admit  that  there  is  not  a  man  here  who  has  not  a  measure  of  selfishness 
in  him.  I  will  admit  that.  Take  the  farmers,  and  there  is  a  measure 
of  selfishness  in  them;  and  in  the  retailers,  and  in  the  wholesale  deal- 
ers, and  the  buyers  of  ordinary  butter.  We  have  all  got  a  measure  of 
it;  but  there  is  one  truth  here  and  one  fact,  and  that  fact  is  this — that 
oleomargarine  is  a  fraud.  It  is  a  cheat.  It  is  not  fair  to  call  it  an 
imitation.  It  is  a  counterfeit,  and  it  is  the  most  deceiving  thing  that 
has  ever  gone  in  the  mouths  of  the  people. 

I  went  home  not  very  long  ago  and  our  folks  were  out  of  butter  and 
I  found  a  very  nice  half  pound  of  "butter"  on  our  table.  As  soon  as 
I  saw  it,  being  accustomed  to  butter  and  knowing  what  it  is,  1  of  course 
readily  detected  that  it  was  oleomargarine.  I  said  to  my  wife,  ' c  Where 
did  you  get  that?"  "  Well,"  she  said,  "I  bought  it  around  the  corner. 
We  just  happened  to  be  out  of  butter."  Said  I,  "What  did  you  pay 
for  it?"  "Twenty  cents  for  half  a  pound."  "Well,"  said  I,  "that  is 
oleomargarine. "  And  I  was  one  out  of  probably  ten  thousand  people 
who  would  have  noticed  it. 

Gentlemen,  I  do  not  want  to  take  any  more  time.  I  am  very  much 
obliged  to  you. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  a  question  ? 

Mr.  HABECKER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  JELKE.  You  are  in  the  butter  business  ? 

Mr.  HABECKER.  I  am  in  the  butter  business. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Do  you  know  anything  about  process  butter? 

Mr.  HABECKER.  Yes,  sir ;  I  do. 

Mr.  JELKE.  You  handle  that? 

Mr.  HABECKER.  I  do,  sir  ;  have  you  got  anything  to  say  against  it? 

Mr.  JELKE.  That  is  all,  sir. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  next  gentleman  who  wishes  to 
address  you  is  Mr.  Joseph  C.  Sharpless. 


220  OLEOMARGARINE. 


STATEMENT  OF  JOSEPH  C.  SHARPLESS,  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  only  a  few  words  to  say.  As 
Mr.  Kauffman  stated,  I  am  a  creamery  man.  I  put  up  most  of  my 
butter  in  half-pound  prints  with  my  full  name  on  them.  My  attention 
was  called  a  little  while  ago  to  some  butter  that  was  found  in  the  mar- 
ket with  my  name  on  it,  a  half-pound  print,  and  when  I  came  to  exam- 
ine it  it  was  oleo.  Somebody  had  gotten  that  block  made  and  gone 
and  printed  oleomargarine  with  my  print,  whereas  if  the  stuff  had 
been  white,  as  we  want  it  to  be,  and  not  colored  in  imitation  of  our 
goods,  the  people  would  not  have  bought  it  as  my  butter.  I  simply 
wanted  to  make  that  statement. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  a  question,  please?  I  would 
like  to  ask  the  two  gentlemen  whether,  if  a  law  could  be  prepared 
which  would  compel  colored  oleomargarine  to  be  sold  for  what  it  is, 
they  would  then  object  to  the  color  in  the  oleo? 

Mr.  HABECKER.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Would  you  object  to  colored  oleomargarine  being  on 
the  market  if  some  law  could  be  framed  by  which  the  dealer  would  be 
compelled  to  sell  it  for  what  it  is  ? 

Mr.  HABECKER.  It  could  not  be. 

Mr.  SCHELL.   Well,  if  it  could  be? 

Mr.  HABECKER.  I  do  not  think  that  is  the  question. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  will  answer  that  question,  if  you  please. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  defer  the  answer  to  that  question 
until  the  turn  of  this  gentleman  to  speak,  because  I  imagine  that  ho, 
who  is  trained  in  the  law,  will  perhaps  know  more  about  statutes  than 
the  gentlemen  who  are  trained  in  the  creamery  business. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  understand;  but  that  simply  goes  to  the  question  of 
whether  or  not  such  a  law  can  be  made.  I  want  to  get  at  the  intent  of 
the  people  who  are  actually  in  the  business,  and  who  are  here  advocat- 
ing this  bill.  I  want  to  know  whether  they  want  colored  oleomargarine 
stamped  out,  or  whether  they  simply  want  it  subjected  to  such  restric- 
tions as  will  insure  its  being  sold  for  what  it  is. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  will  answer  that  question  when  my  turn  comes. 
You  can  ask  me  all  the  questions  you  please,  and  I  will  be  glad  to 
answer  them. 

The  next  gentleman  who  will  speak  is  Mr.  Isaac  W.  Cleaver,  who  is 
manager  of  65  grocery  stores  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 


STATEMENT  OF  ISAAC  W.  CLEAVER,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  represent  the  Acme  Tea  Company, 
which  operates  not  65  but  63  retail  stores  in  Philadelphia. 

We  are  known  as  cut  grocers.  Consequently,  we  think  that  we  reach 
the  masses  of  the  people.  It  has  been  our  desire  and  our  policy,  and 
our  practice,  to  conform  strictly  to  all  the  laws  with  respect  to  pure 
food.  We  have  found  that  we  were  beaten  by  our  competitors,  who 
sold  an  imitation  or  a  counterfeit  for  butter  at  about  a  cent  a  pound  less 
than  we  were  selling  it.  We  know  this  because  we  bought  it  from 
them  as  butter,  for  butter,  had  it  tested,  and  it  proved  to  be  oleo- 
margarine. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  221 

About  two  years  ago  we  were  asked  to  join  the  Pure  Butter  Pro- 
tective Association,  whose  object  was  to  enforce  the  laws  against  the 
illegal  sale  of  oleomargarine.  We  at  once  united  with  them,  and  have 
been  paying  our  money  and  using  all  possible  efforts  to  have  •  these 
laws  executed  so  as  to  stop  the  illegal  sale  of  oleomargarine  for  butter. 
We  have  not  been  successful. 

We  are  in  no  way  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  butter;  only  in 
the  sale  of  it.  If  we  could  sell  oleomargarine  legally  and  there  were 
a  demand  for  it,  we  would  just  as  lief  sell  it  as  we  would  butter. 

With  reference  to  whether  or  not  there  is  a  demand  for  it,  I  have 
only  this  to  say :  We  have  a  printed  slip,  with  questions  on  the  slip 
which  must  be  answered  every  week  by  every  manager  in  each  of  our 
stores.  One  of  those  questions  is  this:  "Has  there  been  any  thing- 
asked  for  during  the  week  that  we  do  not  keep  ?  If  so,  what  ? "  We 
have  yet,  from  all  those  63  stores,  to  have  an  inquiry  for  oleomarga- 
rine or  butterine.  Consequently,  we  are  convinced  that  the  masses  of 
the  people  in  Philadelphia  do  not  want  oleomargarine  or  they  would 
ask  for  it. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Is  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  prohibited  by  law  in 
Philadelphia? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  No,  sir;  it  is  not. 

Mr.  JELKE.  What  is  the  law  in  Pennsylvania  relating  to  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  ? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  I  do  not  know  exactly  what  the  law  is.  All  that  I 
know  is  that  we  have  been  assisting,  in  every  way  in  our  power,  with 
our  money  and  with  our  efforts,  to  have  that  law  enforced,  and  without 
success.  We  still  find  that  our  competitors  beat  us,  right  alongside 
of  us,  because  they  offer  for  a  penny  less  something  that  they  sell  for 
butter. 

This  is  all,  I  believe,  that  I  have  to  say,  unless  questions  are  asked  me. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  About  how  much  butter  do  you  sell  a  day? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  We  sell  from  4,000  to  6,000  pounds  of  butter  per 
day. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Have  you  ever  handled  process  butter? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  We  do,  as  process  butter.  We  handle  it  in  con- 
formity with  the  law — every  package  stamped.  In  everything  con- 
nected with  pure  food  we  adhere  to  the  law  strictly,  both  literally  and 
in  spirit. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Do  you  have  calls  for  process  butter? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Is  it  distinguished  as  such  ?  When  the  customer  asks 
for  it  does  he  say,  "Let  me  have  some  process  butter"? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  Every  package  is  marked,  "Renovated  butter." 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  know;  but  when  the  customer,  the  consumer,  comes 
in  does  he  ask  for  "process  butter"  or  "renovated  butter"? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  Renovated  butter. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Does  he  specify  that  he  wants  that  kind  ? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  That  I  can  not  answer.  You  understand,  I  am  the 
buyer  and  the  manager  of  the  butter,  egg,  and  cheese  department.  I 
am  not  in  the  stores,  you  know.  I  am  the  general  manager,  with  my 
office  at  the  headquarters,  at  our  warehouse,  and  I  do  not  know  about 
all  those  little  details.  But  I  am  familiar  with  these  questions,  be- 
cause the  same  sheet  contains  any  complaints  that  are  made.  So  I  say 
that  any  complaints  that  are  made  about  butter  or  eggs  come  to  me  on 
those  sheets,  in  the  way  I  have  stated. 


222  OLEOMAEGAEINE. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Do  these  sheets  specify  that  you  have  calls  for  reno- 
vated butter  ? 

Mr.  CLEAYER.  Oh,  we  keep  that,  you  understand.  We  keep  that. 
The  question  I  refer  to,  you  must  understand,  is  this:  "  Have  we  had 
calls  for  anything  that  we  do  not  keep?"  Now,  we  keep  renovated 
butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  To  what  class  of  trade  do  you  cater  ? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  I  think  I  said  that  we  are  known  as  cut  grocers,  and 
of  course  we  reach  the  masses,  those  who  want  good  goods  for  little 
money.  Of  course  our  aim  is  all  the  time  to  improve  our  quality,  but 
we  are  known  as  cut  grocers,  and  of  course  our  customers  want  goods 
cheap.  I  should  suppose,  therefore,  that  if  these  dear  people  who  are 
said  to  want  oleo  are  anxious  for  it  they  certainly  would  come  to  us 
for  it. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  You  would  not  sell  that  which  the  law  prohibits  you 
from  selling? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  Well,  there  is  no  way  that  they  would  know  our  rep- 
utation in  the  pure-food  line  except  by  coming  and  finding  out.  We 
do  not  publish  to  the  world  that  we  are  strictly  reliable  and  straight- 
forward. They  would  have  to  find  it  out  by  coming  and  asking. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  You  doubtless  have  a  good  reputation  in  the  com- 
munity where  you  live  ? 

Mr.  CLEAVER.  Well,  we  try  to  have. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  next  gentleman  will  be  E.  D. 
Edson,  who  is  one  of  the  largest  wholesale  butter  dealers  in  the  city 
of  Philadelphia. 


STATEMENT  OF  E.  D.  EDSON,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Mr.  EDSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  can  only  indorse  the  sentiment  that 
has  been  expressed  by  those  gentlemen  that  have  preceded  me.  As  a 
business  man  and  a  butter  dealer,  I  can  but  add  to  what  they  have 
already  stated,  that  in  a  business  of  eighteen  years  I  have  been  in  con- 
stant touch  with  the  creamery  men,  the  dairymen,  and  the  butter 
makers  throughout  the  East  and  the  West,  and  right  in  touch  with 
the  retail  butter  dealers,  a  great  many  of  whom  during  the  past  sev- 
eral years  have  sold  oleomargarine.  Recently  a  number  of  them  have 
gone  out  of  the  oleomargarine  business,  on  account  of  the  prosecutions 
in  Philadelphia.  And  in  almost  all  cases,  without  any  exceptions, 
those  men  with  whom  I  have  discussed  this  oleo  question  have  admitted 
to  me  that  they  could  not  sell  oleo  unless  they  sold  it  as  pure  butter. 

Now,  as  a  matter  of  business,  if  the  public  wanted  oleo,  every  rep- 
resentative butter  house  in  Philadelphia  would  sell  it  to  them  if  it  could 
handle  it  legally.  I  might  venture  to  say  that  there  is  hardly  a  respect- 
able commission  butter  house  to-day  in  Philadelphia  which  would 
entertain  the  idea  of  selling  oleomargarine,  because  they  all  have  the 
knowledge  before  them  that  the}r  can  not  sell  it  legally.  That  is,  if 
they  were  to  sell  it  legally,  they  would  have  to  sell  it  as  oleomargarine, 
and  they  know  that  they  can  not  do  that,  and  they  also  know  that  the 
retail  dealers  to  whom  they  would  sell  this  oleomargarine  would  have 
to  sell  it  as  butter  in  order  to  dispose  of  it. 

Now,  in  order  to  get  at  the  marrow  of  this  oleo  business,  just  com- 
pare the  way  the  farmers  or  the  butter  makers  dispose  of  their  prod- 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  223 

act  with  the  way  the  oleo  manufacturers  dispose  of  theirs.  The  butter 
makers  make  their  butter  and  send  it  to  reputable  commission  houses, 
where  it  is  disposed  of  for  the  account  of  these  shippers  on  a  commis- 
sion basis.  The  oleo  dealers,  after  having  exhausted  every  means  in 
their  power  to  interest  the  respectable  element  in  the  butter  trade, 
and  induce  them  to  handle  their  oleo,  without  avail,  with  the  aid  of 
expert  salesmen  encourage  illiterate  people,  this  low  class  of  Russian 
Jews,  men  who  have  been  unsuccessful  in  business,  who  can  not  com- 
pete legitimately  with  up-to-date  business  men,  to  embark  in  this  trade, 
with  the  guilty  knowledge  before  them  that  these  men  to  whom  they 
are  selling  this  oleo  must  violate  the  law  in  order  to  dispose  of  their 
product. 

I  think  that  speaks  for  itself.  If  the  people  wanted  oleo,  every 
butter  man  in  Philadelphia  would  endeavor  to  get  it  for  them,  if  he 
could  sell  it  legally. 

I  believe  that  is  all  I  have  to  say. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Just  one  question.  You  have  been  in  the  butter  busi- 
ness eighteen  years? 

Mr.  EDSON.  Eighteen  years;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Have  you  ever  sold  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  EDSON.  Yes,  sir;  I  have. 

Mr.  JELKE.  How  long  ago? 

Mr.  EDSON.  Not  for  the  last  ten  or  eleven  years.  I  should  be  very 
glad  to  answer  questions  here  for  an  hour,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
gentlemen. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Edson,  why  did  you  cease  selling  oleo  ? 

Mr.  EDSON.  Because  it  was  against  the  law  to  sell  it. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Do  you  not  recognize  this  difference,  Mr.  Edson? 
The  law  prohibits  the  sale  of  any  imitation  of  butter,  colored — any- 
thing colored  in  imitation  of  butter.  If  the  dealer  were  to  sell  it  for 
either  butter  or  oleomargarine,  he  would  be  guilty  of  violation  of 
the  law. 

Mr.  EDSON.  No;  the  law,  as  it  stands  now,  as  I  understand  it,  per- 
mits him  to  sell  it  if  he  sells  it  for  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No,  sir;  no  sir! 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  law  of  Pennsylvania  prohibits  the 
manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomargarine  made  in  semblance  of  butter. 

Mr.  EDSON.  Oh,  the  law  of  Pennsylvania!  I  did  not  know  you 
meant  that. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  So,  Mr.  Edson,  if  they  sell  it  for  oleomargarine, 
they  confess  that  they  are  guilty  ? 

Mr.  EDSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  If  they  sell  it  for  butter,  the  burden  of  proof,  on* 
the  other  hand,  is  upon  the  Government  to  show  that  what  they  sell  is 
not  butter,  but  oleomargarine  ? 

Mr.  EDSON,  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  So  that  it  is  to  their  interest  to  sell  it  as  butter  unless 
they  want  to  confess  themselves  guilty  ? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Just  one  question,  please.     Do  you  sell  process  butter? 

Mr.  EDSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  next  speaker  will  be  W.  F. 
Drennan,  who  is  also  one  of  the  largest  butter  dealers  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia. 


224  OLEOMAKGARINE. 

STATEMENT  OF  W.  F.  DRENNAN,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  I  would  like  to  state  my  reasons  for  being  in  favor  of 
the  Grout  bill;  and  I  will  try  to  confine  my  reasons  to  facts. 

As  a  commission  merchant,  of  course  I  might  be  called  somewhat 
selfish  in  the  handling  of  genuine  butter.  We  used  to  handle  oleomar- 
garine many  years  ago.  We  handled  it  largely  up  to  the  time  the  first 
law  was  enacted,  and  we  have  handled  it  pending  the  decision  on  the 
constitutionality  of  our  State  law.  After  it  became  a  settled  fact  that 
we  could  not  handle  it  without  violating  the  law,  we  quit  it. 

As  a  dairyman,  as  a  land  owner  and  a  man  interested  in  the  dairy 
business,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  Grout  bill,  because  1  think  it  offers  the 
best  protection  to  the  legitimate  industry  of  butter  making. 

I  also  would  be  glad  to  offer  what  testimony  I  can  give  you  as  to 
some  points  which  I  have  heard  discussed  here  to-day,  and  which  I 
have  seen  through  the  medium  of  the  press.  One  is  the  claim  that 
olemargarine  is  largely  sold  for  what  it  is;  that  the  people  demand  it 
and  want  it,  and  that  the  manufacturers  and  wholesale  dealers  are 
anxious  that  it  shall  be  sold  for  just  what  it  is. 

Now,  I  deny  that  in  toto.  Our  experience,  which  I  will  try  to  verify 
here  to-day,  has  been  exactly  to  the  contrary.  After  being  in  the 
commission  butter  business  over  twenty  years  I  can  call  to  mind  only 
one  instance  in  which  a  consumer  .ever  admitted  that  he  bought  it 
willingly  or  bought  it  for  what  it  was.  That  may  seem  very  strange 
to  you,  and  yet  it  is  true.  I  repeat  that  I  can  recall  but  one  instance  in 
all  my  lifetime  where  any  person  admitted  that  he  bought  it  knowingly 
for  what  it  was  because  he  wanted  it  on  his  table. 

Now,  then,  I  think  the  facts  will  bear  me  out  in  that.  As  chairman 
of  the  executive  committee  of  the  Pure  Butter  Association,  we  were 
compelled  two  years  ago  to  enforce  our  State  law  through  the  medium 
of  what  money  we  could  raise  on  the  street  and  through  appointing 
our  own  attorney  and  our  own  detectives.  After  having  purchased 
about  161  samples  and  having  them  analyzed,  and  having  those  pur- 
chases recorded  in  a  book  where  we  could  have  access  to  them,  the 
question  came  up:  "How  many  purchases  were  made  in  which  the 
vender  gave  them  to  the  purchaser  for  oleomargarine  ? "  Butter  was 
asked  for,  of  course.  Out  of  161  cases,  one  was  sold  for  exactly  what 
it  was.  The  160  were  sold  for  butter  and  at  practically  butter  prices. 

Now,  are  those  facts  sufficient  to  convince  anyone  here  that  these 
goods  are  not  sold  for  what  they  are  ?  Less  than  1  per  cent  in  that 
particular,  instance  was  sold  for  what  it  really  was. 

You  can  have  those  facts  if  you  want  them.  It  has  been  stated  here 
on  this  floor  to-day  that  there  is  only  a  small  percentage  of  oleomar- 
garine sold  for  other  than  what  it  is  or  what  it  purports  to  be.  I 
think  that  this  case  disproves  that  claim,  and  even  if  it  does  not,  I  have 
enough  knowledge  of  the  oleomargarine  business  to  know  that  it  is 
not  sold  for  what  it  is;  that  there  is  no  wholesaler  who  wants  it  sold  for 
what  it  is,  and  that  in  fact  there  is  no  manufacturer  who  really  wants 
it  sold  for  what  it  is,  for  the  reason  that  he  can  make  a  great  deal  more 
out  of  it  and  sell  a  great  deal  more  of  it  through  having  it  sold  for 
butter. 

My  friend  Mr.  Jelke,  here  (a  man  whom  I  have  known  a  long  time, 
and  whom  I  respect),  would  probably  tell  you  that  he  would  prefer 
1  hat  these  goods  should  be  sold  for  what  they  are.  I  think  that  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  225 

Grout  bill  gives  such  men  the  opportunity  of  building  up  their 
industry  on  its  own  merits,  and  that  it  simply  draws  the  line  so  that 
every  human  being  can  tell  exactly  what  he  is  buying. 

It  may  be  a  hard  job  to  do  that  just  at  once.  And  yet  there  is 
nothing  unfair  about  the  Grout  bill,  unless  you  take  the  stand  that 
you  can  not  make  or  introduce  white  oleomargarine  or  oleomargarine 
without  color.  But  even  that  is  nothing.  If  that  is  the  fact,  then  let 
it  stand  on  its  own  merits  instead  of  posing  as  pure  butter. 

There  is  not  a  man  here  who,  if  he  went  to  a  dealer's  stand  and 
asked  for  butter  and  was  given  oleomargarine  after  he  had  paid  the 
pure-butter  price,  would  not  kick.  Mr.  Jelke  himself  would  do  it. 
Any  gentleman  who  has  spoken  to  you  would  do  it. 

Now,  I  state  this  fact,  that  according  to  my  positive  knowledge 
there  is  not  over  1  per  cent  of  oleomargarine  sold  for  what  it  is  in  our 
market.  I  would  not  make  the  statement  if  I  could  not  prove  it. 

If  there  are  any  questions  anyone  wishes  to  ask  me,  I  will  try  to 
answer  them. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  This  is  in  Philadelphia,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Is  what  you  have  stated  due  to  the  fact  that  if  the 
merchant  sold  it  for  anything  but  butter  he  would  confess  himself 
guilty  of  a  violation  of  the  law  ? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  I  have  not  any  doubt  that  that  has  a  very  great 
bearing;  but  even  that  is  no  argument. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  explains  the  fact,  however,  that  men  do  not  go 
into  the  community  and  say,  "I  am  guilty  of  violating  the  law  by 
doing  this."  If  a  dealer  sells  it  for  oleomargarine,  the  law  prohibits 
that,  and  he  confesses  himself  guilty.  If  he  sells  it  for  butter,  the 
State  has  to  prove  that  what  is  actually  sold  is  oleomargarine  in  order 
to  convict  him. 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  People  do  not  convict  themselves,  as  a  rule. 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  My  experience  as  a  man  and  as  a  merchant  for  the 
last  twenty  years  has  taught  me  positively  that  the  average  buyer  of 
butter  does  not  want  oleomargarine,  and  that  when  he  buys  oleomar- 
garine he  gets  it  when  he  asks  for  butter,  and  he  would  not  have  it 
did  he  know  it.  Now,  then,  I  will  admit  that  it  is  possible  to  work  up 
a  trade  for  oleomargarine  on  its  merits.  That  is  all  we  ask  them  to 
do.  The  Grout  bill  gives  them  the  opportunity  to  do  that.  It 
removes  part  of  the  tax.  It  leaves  the  color  out.  It  puts  it  squarely 
on  its  merits.  There  is  no  one  who  can  deny  that. 

Then  there  is  another  thing:  We  have  a  lot  of  irresponsible  dealers 
who  take  up  oleomargarine  because  of  the  immense  profit  in  it.  I  do 
not  need  to  stand  here  and  tell  you  what  it  costs  to  make  it  or  what  it 
costs  to  put  it  into  the  hands  of  the  wholesale  dealer.  We  all  know 
that.  Everybody  knows  that.  But  when  the  retailer,  in  its  colored 
condition,  can  bring  it  up  to  within  1  or  2  cents  of  the  price  of  genu- 
ine butter  and  sell  it  to  the  customer  at  that  price,  he  has  a  profit  of 
anywhere  from  10  to  12  cents.  Therefore  he  is  bound  to  go  into  that 
business  if  there  is  any  such  business;  and  just- as  long  as  there  is 
color  in  it  we  can  not  reach  him. 

You  may  talk  about  the  Wadsworth  bill.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that 
the  revenue  department  of  our  city  does  not  enforce  the  revenue  law. 
It  will  prosecute  a  case  if  we  will  make  it  and  bring  it  to  the  depart- 

S.  Rep.  2043 15 


226  OLEOMAEGAKINE. 

ment  with  the  evidence;  that  is  all.  But  it  is  the  worst  law  we  ever 
could  have  enacted,  according  to  my  best  judgment. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  mean  the  Wadsworth  bill? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  The  Wadsworth  bill. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Just  one  minute,  Mr.  Drennan.  Do  I  understand  you 
to  say  that  you  have  had  no  call  for  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine  ? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Why,  while  we  were  in  the  business  we  had  a  great 
many  calls  for  it.  We  were  in  exactly  the  same  position,  Mr.  Jelke, 
that  you  were.  We  could  not  sell  it  for  butter  if  we  had  tried  to  sell 
it  for  butter.  We  kept  it  stamped  in  our  own  house  for  sale.  The 
man  who  came  there,  if  he  wanted  it  at  all,  wanted  it  as  oleo.  He 
would  do  the  other  work. 

Now,  then,  I  do  not  want  to  forget  anything.  I  came  near  forget- 
ting a  point  that  I  wished  to  make.  We  formerly  sold  to  one  man 
perhaps  $50,000  worth  of  high-grade  oleomargarine  every  year.  That 
man  had  a  rule  behind  his  stalls,  where  he  had  four  cutters,  that  if 
one  of  them  ever  gave  away  the  fact  that  oleomargarine  was  being  sold 
in  that  stall  he  did  it  at  the  peril  of  his  position,  and  he  maintained 
that  rule  for  years.  I  can  think  of  three  gentlemen  in  Camden  who 
bought  it  and  sold  it,  and  they  will  tell  you  to-day  that  a  pound  never 
went  out  of  their  possession  except  for  genuine  butter,  and  they  would 
not  dare  do  it,  and  they  would  not  do  it.  They  sold  it  all  for  butter. 

Now,  those  are  the  facts.  I  would  be  glad  to  be  permitted  to  sell 
oleomargarine  if  there  were  any  demand  for  it  as  such.  But  99  per 
cent  of  it  is  sold  fraudulently.  That  is  absolutely  my  candid  convic- 
tion, and  it  is  what  I  gather  from  facts  that  have  come  under  my  own 
knowledge.  Every  dealer  to  whom  we  sold  oleomargarine  would  tell 
you  that  he  never  could  sell  it,  or  would  not  sell  it,  except  as  butter, 
for  the  reason  that  he  would  not  want  his  trade  to  know  he  was  han- 
dling oleo.  If  he  did,  the  customer  would  say,  "Why  don't  you  let 
me  have  it  at  a  reasonable  price?"  The  dealer  would  sell  it  at  a  price 
about  a  cent  below  that  of  fancy  butter;  hence  the  enormous  profit. 

Now,  that  is  the  way  the  thing  is  run  in  our  market.  There  are 
wholesale  dealers  there  who  would  contradict  me,  but  I  know  that 
those  wholesale  dealers — and  you  may  take  the  most  respectable  of 
them — have  insisted  that  our  trade,  in  coming  to  us  and  buying  butter, 
must  take  up  the  oleo.  They  have  said,  ulf  you  will  only  take  it  up 
we  will  see  that  you  are  not  at  one  cent  expense  for  legal  matters. 
We  will  bear  all  the  expense.  We  will  stand  behind  you  and  protect 
you  as  regards  that  part  of  it.  Go  in.  You  might  as  well  go  in  and 
sell  it  as  somebody  else.  We  will  stand  back  of  you."  If  one  man 
has  said  that  thing  to  me  in  the  last  six  months,  in  the  endeavor  to 
urge  us  into  handling  oleo,  fifty  have  done  it,  and  everyone  with 
assurance  (whether  or  not  it  would  have  been  carried  out  I  do  not 
know)  that  they  would  stand  back  of  us  and  protect  us. 

That  is  the  way  it  is  sold  in  Philadelphia,  and  there  is  not  a  man 
here  in  the  business  but  what  knows  it. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Mr.  Drennan,  just  one  question.  You  handle  all  kinds 
of  butter,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Yes,  sir;  pretty  much. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Process  butter? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  No,  sir;  we  do  not. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Renovated  butter? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  No,  sir.  We  do  not  handle  it;  not  because  we  have 
any  scruple  against  it,  but  because  we  have  no  particular  trade  for  it. 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  227 

Mr.  JELKE.  Well,  you  know  how  it  is  packed  or  put  up,  do  you  9 
I  refer  to  process  butter,  renovated  butter. 
Mr.  DRENNAN.  Yes.    We  have  handled  it  in  years  gone  by;  but 


Mr.  JELKE.  It  is  put  up  in  these  same  square  prints  and  round  prints, 
just  the  same  as  creamery  butter? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  JELKE.  And  dairy  butter? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Yes,  sir.  I  suppose  every  man  here  knows  what 
renovated  butter  is.  In  the  course  of  my  business  I  have  sold  millions 
of  dollars'  worth  of  this  dairy  butter  —  real  butter,  put  up  in  tubs, 
re  washed,  and  repacked.  We  have  sold  it  for  what  it  was.  We  have 
sold  it  for  dairy  butter,  sold  it  for  ladle  butter,  and  all  that  sort  of 
thing.  We  have  sold  carloads  of  it  every  week.  Now,  then,  the  dif- 
ference between  that  and  process  butter  is  that  they  simply  take  that 
raw  material  and  render  it  and  take  out  a  great  deal  of  filth,  although 
you  understand  I  do  not  handle  it,  and  I  am  not  speaking  for  it  myself. 
Our  law  in  Pennsylvania  compels  them  to  stamp  it  for  what  it  is;  but 
it  is  a  much  better  product  than  it  originally  was.  Still,  I  do  not  han- 
dle it. 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  process  removes  the  filth  in  the  butter? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Yes,  sir.  I  do  not  know  of  anything  under  heaven 
that  has  more  of  it  than  common  butter  —  the  ordinary  roll  butter, 
such  as  is  not  made  in  the  creameries.  I  think  it  is  filthy. 

Mr.  EDSON.  Mr.  Drennan,  you  do  not  wish  to  convey  the  impres- 
sion that  all  dairy  butter  has  the  rancidity  of  which  you  speak? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Oh,  no.  You  will  allow  me  to  qualify  that.  There 
is  a  gentleman  here  from  Chester  County  who  makes  butter  in  such 
a  way  that  the  finest  product  in  the  world  could  not  be  made  an}^ 
finer,  and  there  is  no  finer  product  than  dairy  butter.  I  am  speaking 
simply  of  the  butter  that  is  brought  by  the  average  country  farmer 
throughout  the  West  to  the  store  and  traded  off  for  goods.  It  gets 
rancid.  Some  of  it  is  dirty;  some  of  it  is  clean. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  these  gentlemen  are  but  a  few 
of  those  who  are  here.  I  think  I  can  safely  say  of  the  wholesale 
dealers  here  that  they  represent  three-fourths  of  the  wholesale  butter 
trade  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia;  and  they,  of  course,  will  indorse 
what  these  two  gentlemen  have  said  as  their  views  in  relation  to  the 
Grout  bill  as  affecting  the  wholesale  trade. 

Now,  I  have  one  more  speaker  to  introduce.  That  is  Mr.  Thomas 
Sharpless.  He  is  a  farmer,  a  dairyman  —  not  a  creamery  man,  but  a 
farmer  —  and  he  will  talk  to  you,  if  you  will  permit  him,  from  the 
standpoint  of  a  farmer. 


STATEMENT     OF     THOMAS     SHARPLESS,     ESQ.,     OF      CHESTER 

COUNTY,  PA. 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  my  profession  in 
life  does  not  lead  me  to  be  a  public  speaker,  but  this  is  a  question 
which  affects  me  and  all  us  farmers  very  nearly. 

I  live  in  Chester  County,  Pa.  Chester  and  Delaware  counties  are 
given  up,  body  and  soul,  to  the  keeping  of  cows  for  the  making  of 
butter  and  the  production  of  milk.  We  think  it  is  an  outrage  that  we 


228  OLEOMARGARINE. 

men  who  manufacture  genuine  real  butter  should  be  compelled  to 
compete  in  the  market  with  a  fraudulent  article  which  is  made  in 
imitation  of  our  butter. 

I  do  not  think  the  wholesomeness  which  I  heard  discussed  here  this 
morning  enters  into  the  question  at  all,  pro  or  con.  The  question  is 
simply  the  fraud  that  these  men  perpetrate  when  they  make  an  article 
which  is  not  butter  and  sell  it  as  butter. 

Now,  we  color  our  butter.  There  is  no  use  denying  that;  because 
we  have  never  attempted  to  deny  it  at  all.  We  color  it  to  suit  our 
trade;  but  it  is  what  we  sell  it  for.  It  is  butter;  we  say  it  is  butter. 
It  is  not  made  of  tallow  and  cottonseed  oil  and  lard,  or  anything  else 
of  that  kind.  It  is  butter,  and  it  is  nothing  but  butter,  and  we  sell  it 
for  just  exactly  what  it  is. 

I  say  that  these  manufacturers  have  no  moral  right  to  color  another 
product  and  sell  it  in  the  market  as  butter  in  competition  with  our 
product.  They  have  no  moral  right  to  compel  us  to  compete  with  an 
article  of  that  kind.  It  is  not  justice;  it  is  not  right. 

Pennsylvania  has  profited  by  the  protective  tariff.  It  has  been  one 
of  the  great  protective- tariff  States,  and  every  one  of  our  industries 
is  protected  except  us  farmers  who  manufacture  butter. 

I  have  been  making  butter  for  twenty-five  years.  In  that  time  I 
have  seen  the  actual  value  of  our  lands  depreciate  40  per  cent. 
Within  one  mile  of  my  place  there  are  seven  farms  owned  by  aliens 
and  run  by  tenants.  Within  a  mile  and  a  half  of  my  place  (and  we 
live  in  a  fairly  good  country,  on  the  Brandywine  Hills)  I  have  seen 
two  farms  put  up  for  sale  without  a  single  actual  bidder  for  them. 
They  were  fine  farms,  too,  one  of  them  containing  137  acres  and  the 
other  some  160  odd  acres,  and  they  never  had  a  bidder.  That  is 
simply  because  our  business  has  become  so  unprofitable  that  only  those 
who  are  compelled  to  stay  in  it  or  go  bankrupt  stay  there. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  What  is  the  business  ? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  Making  butter — making  dairy  butter.  I  do  not 
furnish  milk  to  a  creamery  at  all.  I  make  my  own  butter  in  my  own 
spring  house  on  the  place,  and  furnish  it  to  private  trade. 

Mr.  JELKE.  At  what  price  do  you  sell  your  butter? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  I  sell  my  butter  at  35  cents  the  year  round,  whole- 
sale. I  have  no  secrets  at  all  about  my  trade.  I  make  butter  and 
nothing  else,  and  I  sell  it  for  butter,  too.  I  sell  it  to  people  who  appre- 
ciate butter,  and  they  do  not  buy  oleo.  Now,  I  have  eaten  oleo,  and, 
for  anything  that  I  could  taste  about  it,  I  knew  I  was  eating  oleo  when 
I  ate  it.  For  anything  that  I  could  taste  about  it,  it  tasted  fairly  good. 
But  that  is  not  the  question — whether  it  is  good  or  whether  it  is  bad. 
There  is  bad  butter  made  as  well  as  there  is  good  butter  made.  The 
question  is  simply,  u  Shall  I,  who  make  an  honest,  square  article  of 
butter,  be  compelled  to  compete  with  an  article  that  is  not  butter, 
made  in  the  semblance  of  my  product?"  1  say  it  is  not  fair;  it  is  not 
right.  Whether  the  Grout"  bill  is  the  remedy  for  it  or  not  I  do  not 
know,  but  it  looks  that  way  to  me. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Sharpless,  do  we  understand  you  to  say  that  you 
can  make  nothing  on  butter  at  35  cents  a  pound  ? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  I  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  MILLER.  What  do  you  say,  then  ?  I  understood  you  to  say  that 
the  business  is  very  unprofitable,  and  that  the  value  of  land  is 
decreasing. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  229 

\ 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  Because  I  make  a  fair  article  of  butter,  and  sell  it 
to  a  fair  trade,  and  get  a  little  bit  better  price  than  most  people  do, 
that  is  no  reason  why  everybody  gets  that  price.  You  can  buy  any 
amount  of  butter  around  in  our  neighborhood,  say  at  25  cents — proba- 
bly not  just  at  the  present  time,  but  you  can  through  the  summer  sea- 
son, any  amount  of  it.  The  farms  of  our  neighborhood  can  not  make 
butter  out  of  their  land  and  sell  it  for  25  cents  and  make  any  money 
out  of  it.  They  simply  can  not  do  it  for  that;  and  I  know  it,  because 
I  have  been  right  there,  and  my  accounts  will  show  it. 

Mr.  MILLER.  From  the  statement  made  yesterday  by  Mr.  Hamil- 
ton, the  dairy  commissioner  of  Pennsylvania,  we  should  judge  the 
Pennsylvania  butter  business  to  be  in  a  very  health}7  condition. 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  We  have  a  law  regulating  the  sale  of  oleomargarine 
in  Pennsylvania,  and  the  enforcement  of  that  law  rests  with  Professor 
Hamilton.  He  claims  that  he  is  not  able  to  enforce  that  law.  Either 
that  is  a  fact,  or  else  he  is  unwilling  to  do  so.  Some  of  us  are  unchar- 
itable enough  to  believe  that  he  is  unwilling.  We  have  not  had  very 
much  faith  in  his  attempts  to  enforce  that  law. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Have  you  any  idea  how  much  oleomargarine 
there  is  sold  in  Pennsylvania? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  No,  not  to  my  certain  knowledge;  but  I  will  tell 
you  what  I  do  know,  that  one  of  my  friends  who  was  in  Pittsburg 
went  into  the  stores  there  and  asked  for  butter,  and  he  bought  what 
they  sold  him  as  butter  and  took  it  out  and  had  it  analyzed  and  it 
proved  to  be  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  EDSON.  Mr.  Sharpless,  will  you  tell  me  how  many  quarts  of 
milk  there  are  in  a  pound  of  butter  ? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  It  varies;  it  depends  altogether  upon  the  cows. 

Mr.  EDSON.  At  this  time  of  year,  I  mean. 

MR.  SHARPLESS.  It  varies;  it  takes  about  9  quarts,  or  a  fraction 
less  than  9  quarts,  of  my  milk  to  make  a  pound  of  butter. 

Mr.  EDSON.  On  an  average  it  takes  more  than  that,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  The  ordinary  creamery  does  not  make  it  under  ten. 

Mr.  EDSON.  Then,  at  the  present  price  of  butter,  how  much  does  a 
farmer  get  for  a  quart  of  milk? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  It  depends  altogether  on  the  price  he  gets. 

Mr.  EDSON.  Based  on  25-cent  butter — 22  to  25  cent  butter? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  He  would  not  get  but  2  cents  and  a  half. 

Mr.  EDSON.  Does  he  get  2  cents  and  a  half  ? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  He  has  to  pay  the  creamery  for  manufacturing  his 
butter. 

Mr.  EDSON.  Well,  finally,  when  the  farmer  gets  his  money,  how 
much  a  quart  does  he  get  for  his  milk? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  He  gets  about  2  cents. 

Mr.  EDSON.  He  gets  about  a  cent  and  a  half,  I  should  say,  or  some- 
where around  that  neighborhood.  He  gets  about  a  cent  and  three- 
quarters  to  two  cents  a  quart  at  the  best  of  times.  That  is  what  it 
costs. 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  He  can  not  produce  milk  in  our  county  and  sell  it 
at  that  price  and  make  a  profit  out  of  it. 

Mr.  EDSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  there  are 
from  10  to  11  quarts  of  milk  in  a  pound  of  butter.  At  the  average 
price  of  butter  throughout  the  year  a  farmer  in  the  East  or  in  the 
West  will  net  about  a  cent  and  a  half  a  quart  for  milk  on  butter  sold 
at  from  18  to  20  cents. 


230  OLEOMAEGARINE. 

Now,  you  can  see  that  that  is  little  enough.  The  actual  cost  of  the 
production  of  a  pound  of  butter  is  about  16  or  18  cents;  so  that  where 
butter  is  compelled  to  compete  with  oleomargarine,  which  is  made 
at  10  or  11  and  12  cents  a  pound  and  sold  at  identically  the  same  price, 
the  farmer  has  got  to  go  out  of  business. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Was  the  price  of  butter  any  higher  before  oleo- 
margarine was  used? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  Yes,  sir.  I  never  thought  anything  of  getting  50 
cents  a  pound  for  butter. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  When? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  When  I  first  began;  when  I  first  entered  into  the 
dairy  business,  twenty -five  years  ago.  It  was  gradually  cut  down  to 
45  and  40,  until  it  got  down  to  30  cents. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  When  the  country  got  on  a  gold  basis  it  went  down 
to  30  cents,  I  suppose  ? 

Mr.  SHARPLESS.  When  I  got  down  to  30  cents,  I  thought  1  was 
pretty  near  the  bottom.  Now,  I  do  not  want  to  take  up  your  time, 
gentlemen,  but  the  only  point  I  have  in  this  matter  is  that  I  say  it  is 
unjust  and  unfair  that  we  farmers,  who  make  an  honest,  fair  article, 
should  be  compelled  to  compete  with  a  fraudulent  article  made  in 
imitation  of  our  product.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say  about  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  made  your  point  very  clearly,  sir. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  before  I  call  the  next  speaker, 
I  desire  to  say  about  Mr.  Sharpless,  that  the  Sharpless  butter  is  known 
all  over  the  United  States.  It  is  the  highest  brand  of  butter  that  is 
known  in  the  United  States. 

The  next  speaker  whom  I  want  to  introduce,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the 
president  of  the  Produce  Exchange  of  Philadelphaia,  Mr.  Isaac  W. 
Davis. 


STATEMENT    OF    ISAAC    W.   DAVIS,   ESQ.,   PRESIDENT    OF    THE 
PRODUCE  EXCHANGE,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA, 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  anything  at 
all  to  add  to  what  has  already  been  said.  I  did  not  expect  to  be  called 
on,  and  I  have  very  little  to  say.  What  I  have  to  say  is  simply  by  way 
of  confirmation  of  what  has  already  been  stated. 

I  believe  that  one  of  the  reasons  for  our  coming  here  is  our  belief 
that  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill  will  be  the  most  effectual  means  of 
correcting  what  has  been  very  emphatically  stated  here  as  a  fraud. 
That  is  our  belief,  and  it  is  mine.  The  history  of  the  traffic  has  been 
one  of  illegality,  and  all  the  legislation  that  has  been  enacted,  so  far  as 
I  have  known  of  it,  has  been  necessarily  of  a  restrictive  character. 

The  legitimate  butter  interests  have  been  compelled,  by  way  of 
defense,  to  hedge  about  this  thing,  when,  if  it  had  been  legitimate  and 
fair,  as  it  has  been  claimed  here  that  it  is,  there  would  not  have  been 
the  slightest  necessity  for  that  kind  of  legislation.  And  all  the  laws 
that  have  been  enacted  have  more  or  less  failed.  We  think  the  Grout 
bill  will  meet  the  case  in  every  particular,  for  the  reason  that  it  will 
compel  the  manufacturers  of  this  product  to  compete  fairly;  that  is, 
they  can  not  get  away  from  it.  It  will  compel  them  to  sell  their 
product  for  what  it  is,  and  it  will  bring  the  article  down  to  the  con- 
sumer. For  instance,  under  the  Wadsworth  bill,  if  this  product  goes 


OLEOMARGABINE.  231 

to  a  hotel  or  a  restaurant,  or  into  a  private  house,  these  supposed  safe 
guards,  or  wrappers,  or  whatever  they  may  be,  which  are  used  to 
identify  it  as  oleomargarine,  are  taken  off,  and  the  consumer  does  not 
know  anything  about  it;  and  he  is  imposed  on.  The  same  kind  of 
imposition  goes  all  the  way  through,  and  all  the  methods,  so  far  as  we 
have  been  able  to  discover,  of  the  manfacturers  and  dealers  of  oleo- 
margarine have  been  those  of  systems  of  deceit — to  put  off  on  the 
people  articles  of  food  which  they  did  not  know  they  were  using. 

Now,  1  do  not  know  that  I  can  say  anything  further  about  this  mat- 
ter. The  only  point  is  that  we  are  here  in  the  butter  interest — dairy- 
men, dealers,  and  consumers — to  state  our  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  this 
Grout  bill.  We  want  it.  We  think  it  is  a  remedy  for  all  these  ills  in 
the  butter  trade,  and  that  it  will  compel  legitimate  competition.  The 
butter  dealers  do  not  want  to  destroy  this  product.  They  have  no  idea 
of  doing  that.  If  people  want  oleomargarine,  they  are  entitled  to 
have  it.  But,  as  1  understand  it,  statistics  show  that  90  per  cent  of 
this  stuff  goes  into  consumption  as  butter,  and  that  very  fact  ought  to 
stamp  it  as  a  fraud. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  What  statistics  do  you  refer  to? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  not  them  in  my  possession;  but  I  have  heard  the 
statements  made  and  the  facts  given,  and  they  have  not  been  contested 
at  all. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  We  will  give  them  to  you. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  only  one  more  gen- 
tleman who  will  speak  to  you — Mr.  Jamison,  who  is  a  very  large 
wholesale  dealer  in  Philadelphia. 


STATEMENT    OF    SAMUEL   JAMISON,  ESQ.,  WHOLESALE   BUTTER 
DEALER,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Mr.  JAMISON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  we  speak  in  favor  of 
the  Grout  bill  for  the  reason  that  we  have  tried,  by  experience,  all  the 
previous  legislation,  and  we  are  still  spending  our  money  to  have  the 
laws  enforced.  I  suppose  it  has  been  ten  years  since  the  butter  trade 
of  Philadelphia  has  made  an  effort  to  control  the  sale  of  oleomargarine 
according  to  the  laws  which  were  passed  by  the  United  States,  to 
enfore  the  national  law,  or  our  own  State  law.  We  find  great  diffi- 
culty in  enforcing  the  laws  as  individuals.  We  have  probably  spent 
in  the  neighborhood  of  $50,000  of  our  own  money  to  have  oleomar- 
garine sold  according  to  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania.  We  have  been  com- 
pelled, from  year  to  year,  to  have  additional  legislation  passed,  making 
it  harder  and  harder  for  oleomargarine  to  be  sold  as  butter. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a  question  ? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Allow  the  gentleman  to  proceed,  please. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  will,  unless  he  desires  to  be  interrupted. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  ask  him  questions  at  the  end  of  his 
remarks,  unless  he  desires  to  be  interrupted  now. 

Mr.  JAMISON.  It  does  not  make  any  difference. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  will  ask  if,  during  that  period,  you  have  not  had 
in  Pennsylvania  a  prohibitive  law,  absolutely  prohibiting  the  sale  of  all 
oleomargarine? 

Mr.  JAMISON.  We  had  a  prohibitive  law  for  some  time,  and  we  found 


232  OLEOMARGARINE. 

that  there  was  no  appropriation  made  by  the  State  to  enforce  it.  I  think 
the  trade,  as  a  rule,  has  spent  its  own  money  to  have  that  law  enforced. 
During  that  period,  I  think,  we  have  also  had  a  revenue  law,  which 
requires  oleomargarine  to  be  marked  plainly,  so  that  all  consumers 
would  know  what  they  were  buying;  and  we  found  both  the  State  and 
the  national  laws  absolutely  void.  They  were  not  enforced,  except 
through  the  efforts  of  the  trade.  We  have  our  own  business  to  attend 
to.  We  are  not  the  police  power  of  the  State.  We  have  been  forced, 
notwithstanding  that  fact,  to  that  attitude.  Fortunately,  a  few  years 
ago  the  State  appropriated  a  sum  amounting  to  about  $25,000,  which, 
I  think,  had  been  obtained  indirectly  by  license,  but  the  dairy  and  pure 
food  commissioner  of  the  State  has  stated  here  that  he  has  found  it 
exceedingly  difficult  to  have  that  law  enforced. 

We  ask  for  additional  legislation  because  we  find  that  the  goods  can 
not  be  controlled  except  at  the  factory.  The  minute  they  leave  the 
factory  the  deception  begins.  As  reputable  merchants,  merchants  of 
standing,  with  capital  behind  us,  and  with  prominent  locations  in  the 
center  of  a  large  city,  we  can  not  violate  these  laws.  We  are  the  first 
men  to  be  arrested  if  we  do  violate  them.  But  we  have  customers 
who  sell  these  goods  at  retail.  After  they  get  possession  of  those 
goods,  they  remove  all  marks  absolutely.  They  remove  the  revenue 
stamp;  they  scrape  the  word  "oleomargarine"  off  the  boxes.  They 
receive  the  oleomargarine  itself  without  any  marks  whatever  on  it. 
Then,  they  proceed  to  sell  it  as  butter.  And  of  all  the  retail  dealers  in 
oleomargarine  who  have  a  Government  license  in  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia— how  many  are  there,  Mr.  Kauffman  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Only  32,  now. 

Mr.  JAMISON.  I  doubt  very  much  whether  any  individual  can  go  to 
any  one  of  those  retail  dealers  who  has  a  Government  license  to  sell 
oleomargarine  and  succeed  in  obtaining  oleomargarine  if  he  asks  for  it. 
I  have  repeatedly  asked  retail  dealers  who  had  a  Government  license 
(generally  under  some  assumed  name;  instead  of  taking  their  own 
name,  they  call  themselves  some  creamery  company  or  other)  for  oleo- 
margarine. I  have  said  to  these  men,  "Are  you  handling  oleomar- 
garine?" "  No;  I  do  not  sell  it."  Still,  we  know  that  they  pay  for  a 
Government  license.  We  know  that  they  receive- the  goods.  We 
know  that  they  sell  to  their  regular  trade,  every  day,  oleomargarine 
for  butter.  A  stranger  who  comes  to  one  of  their  places  of  business 
and  asks  for  butter  will  probably  receive  butter,  because  he  is  an 
unknown  buyer;  but  to  their  regular  trade  we  find  that  they  sell  oleo- 
margarine to  this  day,  in  spite  of  what  may  be  called  the  prohibitory 
law  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  and  a  national  law  which  requires 
oleomargarine  to  be  marked.  We  find  it  simply  impossible  to  control 
the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine  after  the  goods  leave  the 
factory.  I  have  had  considerable  experience  with  oleomargarine;  we 
sold  it  ourselves  previous  to  the  legislation  in  the  State  which  made  it 
impossible  to  sell  it  legally,  and  that  is  why  I  say  these  things. 

As  I  was  saying,  these  retail  dealers  have  continued  to  sell  oleomarga- 
rine as  butter  to  this  day,  and  that  is  the  reason  I  think  the  goods 
ought  to  be  controlled  at  the  factory,  because  as  soon  as  they  leave 
the  factory  they  are  in  such  a  shape  that  they  can  not  be  controlled 
by  either  the  State  or  the  present  national  law.  If  they  are  taxed  at 
the  factory  or  put  in  such  shape  that  they  must  go  to  the  consumer 
as  oleomargarine  we  will  be  perfectly  satisfied.  Individually  I  have 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  233 

no  objection  to  oleomargarine  and  would  probably  sell  it  to-morrow 
if  I  could  sell  it  according  to  the  laws,  and  if  the  people  to  whom  1 
sold  it  would  comply  with  the  laws  so  as  not  to  get  me  in  a  position 
like  they  did  a  few  years  ago.  If  a  retailer  was  caught  violating  the 
laws  of  Pennsylvania  he  would  take  advantage  of  the  laws  and  simply 
say,  "Well,  I  can  not  pay  you,  because  you  are  in  an  illicit  business," 
and  he  would  give  that  as  a  reason  for  not  paying  his  bills.  The  traffic 
is  in  a  very  serious  condition.  As  I  have  said  before,  I  have  no  seri- 
ous objection  to  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine;  but  the 
trade  to  which  we  sell  can  not  compete  with  the  men  who  are  willing 
to  take  the  chances  of  arrest  for  violating  the  present  State  and  national 
laws. 

I  hope,  therefore,  that  the  bill  will  pass  because  it  will  relieve,  in  a 
great  measure,  the  present  expensive  system  of  enforcing  the  national 
as  well  as  the  State  law.  The  States  know  that  they  can  not  control 
the  sale  of  this  product  without  the  use  of  a  great  deal  of  money,  and 
it  is  impossible  to  watch  the  thousand  and  one  small  dealers.  A  great 
many  of  them  are  unlicensed.  There  are  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia 
and  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  a  great  many  unlicensed  dealers. 
The  revenue  men  are  not  able  to  find  illicit  dealers  sufficient  even  to 
collect  the  revenue.  One  revenue  collector  himself  told  me  that  he 
went  to  Pittsburg  and  in  a  few  days  found  35  illicit  oleo  dealers  who 
had  not  paid  the  Government  tax  at  all,  and  were  violating  both  the 
national  and  State  laws. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Jamison,  let  me  ask  you  a  question,  please. 
You  are  a  commission  merchant? 

Mr.  JAMISON.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Could  you  not  devise  a  law  which  would  so  identify, 
at  the  factory,  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine,  that  it  could  be  car- 
ried in  that  condition  to  the  consumer  without  any  risk  of  coming  into 
competition  with  creamery  butter?  ;- 

Mr.  JAMISON.  I  know  of  no  way  of  accomplishing  that  result.  *  I 
have  given  it  serious  thought.  We  supplied  the  best  hotels  at  one 
time.  We  sell  butter  to  hotels  from  Maine  to  Florida.  We  supplied 
this  town  here  for  }^ears  with  probably  90  per  cent  of  the  fine  butter 
used  here.  And  I  do  not  see  how,  after  the  goods  leave  the  factory, 
they  can  reach  the  hotel,  the  restaurant,  the  boarding  house,  or  the 
retailer,  and  not  be  used  as  butter.  The  retailer  can  take  a  machine, 
and  no  matter  how  you  brand  it,  even  if  you  put  something  in  the 
interior  of  the  butter,  he  .can  take  it  out  and  print  it  over  and  sell 
it  for  butter. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  If  the  law  required  the  retail  dealer  to  sell  it  to  the 
consumer  in  the  original  package,  without  the  paper  being  broken, 
would  it  not  then  reach  the  consumer  as  it  came  from  the  factory,  in 
the  original  package? 

Mr.  JAMISON.  The  national  law  requires  to-day  that  every  package 
of  oleo  sold  at  retail  must  be  marked  with  the  word  "  oleomargarine," 
the  address,  and  the  number  of  pounds.  Every  retailer  in  Philadel- 
phia, you  may  say,  violates  that  law  to-day. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  But  if  they  were  required  by  the  law  to  sell  it  in  the 
original  package,  without  breaking  the  seal  or  the  internal-revenue 
stamp,  and  deliver  it  in  that  shape  to  the  consumer,  would  you  see  any 
danger  then  from  its  coming  in  competition  with  the  sale  of  creamery 


234  OLEOMARGAKINE. 

butter,  as  far  as  the  retail  merchant  is  concerned,  or  as  far  as  you  are 
concerned? 

Mr.  JAMISON.  So  far  as  the  manufacturer  and  the  wholesale  dealer 
are  concerned,  the  business  is  thoroughly  legitimate.  And  yet,  even 
before  these  absolutely  prohibitory  laws  were  passed  in  Pennsylvania, 
we  were  asked  by  dealers  to  enter  fictitious  names  on  our  revenue 
books,  and  to  do  other  things  which  we  did  not  care  to  do,  and  which 
we  refused  to  do.  But  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  there  are  other  dealers 
in  the  business,  competing  with  us,  who  have  not  hesitated  to  do  these 
things. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  That  was  because  the  law  made  it  a  crime  to  do  these 
particular  things.  If  it  had  been  lawful  for  you  to  sell  the  oleomar- 
garine in  the  original  package,  just  as  you  got  it  from  the  factory, 
without  breaking  the  seal  and  without  breaking  the  internal-revenue 
stamp,  would  you  have  had  any  embarrassment  in  delivering  it  so  to 
your  consumers — to  your  purchasers  ? 

Mr.  JAMISON.  Not  as  a  wholesale  dealer;  no. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  ask  Judge  Springer,  is  there  anything 
that  will  prevent  the  retail  dealer  from  removing  the  article  from  the 
package  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No  thing  but  the  law.  The  penalties  of  the  law  would 
prevent  that. 

Mr.  JELKE.  May  I  ask  Mr.  Jamison  one  question  ?  Do  you  handle 
renovated  butter? 

Mr.  JAMISON.  We  do;  but  nobody  wants  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Jamison,  do  you  handle  creamery  butter? 

Mr.  JAMISON.  We  do. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  handle  ladle  butter  ? 

Mr.  JAMISON.  Very  little.     That  is  another  thing  they  do  not  want. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  handle  dairy  butter  ? 

Mr.  JAMISON.   We  get  no  dairy  butter  of  any  consequence. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  handle  packing  stock? 

Mr.  JAMISON.  Whenever  we  can  get  a  consignment,  but  not  often. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  want  to  ask  the  gentleman  if  he  has  any  infor- 
mation as  to  the  amount  of  oleo  that  there  is  sold  in  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  will  answer  that. 

Mr.  JAMISON.  Mr.  Kauffman  has  the  figures. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  11,000,000  of  pounds. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  you  will  bear  me  out  in  stat- 
ing that  I  have  been  very  patient,  and  have  interrupted  but  very  little, 
and  have  always  been  the  last  one  to  ask  questions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  point  I  want  to  make  now,  while  all  these  gentle- 
men are  here,  and  one  on  which  I  think  I  have  a  right  to  insist,  is  that 
they  go  on  record  before  this  committee  as  to  their  attitude  toward 
colored  oleomargarine.  That  is,  I  want  them  to  state  whether  they 
want  to  drive  it  entirely  out  of  the  market  or  whether  they  are  willing 
that  it  shall  be  sold  for  what  it  is,  if  it  can  be  sold  for  what  it  is. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  will  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  they  have  been  headed  off;  they  have  not  been 
allowed  to  answer  it.  I  would  like  them  to  say  for  themselves. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN,  I  will  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  know;  but  we  do  not  want  your  answer. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  235 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  represent  them  all,  and  you  can  put  all  the  ques- 
tions to  me  you  want  to  put. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  There  has  been  no  restraint  upon  questions. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No;  but  when  I  ask  the  question  this  gentleman  says 
he  will  answer  it. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  You  are  just  taking  up  my  time,  sir. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No;  you  are  taking  my  time.  I  should  have  gone  on 
to-day. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No;  you  are  trespassing  upon  my  time. 

Mr.  JAMISON.  I  have  no  objection  to  answering  that  question.  Per- 
sonally, I  have  no  objection  to  colored  oleomargarine  as  colored  oleo- 
margarine. The  fact  is  that  butter  is  sold  white.  The  highest  priced 
butter  made  in  the  United  States  is  sold  white.  It  goes  to  New  York 
City,  Philadelphia,  and  the  best  parts  of  the  United  States.  The  color 
question  is  immaterial.  It  varies  in  every  State  and  in  every  market. 
All  we  want  is  a  law  which  will  compel  oleomargarine  to  reach  the 
individual  as  oleomargarine.  I  doubt  very  much  if  there  is  a  manu- 
facturer of  oleomargarine,  a  jobber,  retailer,  or  anyone  else  who  would 
eat  oleomargarine  himself;  but  he  will  sell  it  to  other  people  for  them 
to  eat. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  serve  it  on  my  table  to  my  family  every  day,  and 
every  man  in  our  employ  takes  it  home  for  his  own  use.  Mr.  Brown, 
the  president  of  our  company,  has  used  it  for  years  on  his  family  table, 
and  prefers  it  to  butter. 

Mr.  JAMISON.  Well,  that  is  a  vitiated  taste. 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Gentlemen,  as  long  as  it  is  sought  to  make  a  point 
here  about  colored  oleomargarine  I  have  no  objection  at  all  to  going 
on  record.  If  you  will  give  me  a  law  which  will  compel  every  man  to 
sell  these  goods  for  exactly  what  they  are  1  have  no  objection  to  the 
color;  but,  then,  that  is  not  the  point.  They  know  just  as  well  as  they 
know  they  are  asking  the  question  that  it  can  not  be  done. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  the  point. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  We  are  only  asking  if  you  would  have  any  objection 
if  it  can  be  done. 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  I  stand  here  to  contradict  you.  You  know  it  can 
not  be  done;  and  you  are  trying  to  drive  us  into  a  corner.  You  know 
that  as  long  as  those  goods  are  colored  they  will  be  sold  for  butter, 
ind  don't  you  forget  it.  1  know  it,  too. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Order,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  I  want  to  state  emphatically  that  my  experience  for 
twenty  years  has  been  that  as  long  as  those  goods  are  colored  they 
will  dodge  any  law  under  heaven.  You  talk  about  the  revenue  law! 
The  revenue  agency  in  our  city  pays  no  attention  whatever  to  the 
enforcement  of  the  law.  If-  a  man  is  found  selling  oleomargerine 
without  a  license  they  will  simply  ask  him  to  go  and  take  one  out. 
They  say,  "  Go  and  take  out  your  license,"  and  that  is  the  end  of  it. 

Now,  you  talk  about  a  certain  law  called  the  Wadsworth  law.  It  is 
no  better  than  the  present  revenue  law,  and  not  half  as  good  as  the 
present  law. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  now  hear  Mr.  Kauffman.  How 
long  a  time  do  you  want,  Mr.  Kauffman  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  want  to  have  all  the  time  you  can  give  me.  I  do 
not  want  to  trespass  upon  your  patience,  however. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  ready  to  go  on,  Mr.  Schell,  after 
this  gentleman  is  through  ? 


236  OLEOMAKGARINE. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  am  ready  at  any  time,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  hear  this  gentleman,  and  also 
to  hear  you,  to-day. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  How  much  time  have  we  left? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  now  quarter  to  4  o'clock;  and  if  we 
close  our  session  at  5,  that  will  leave  us  an  hour  and  a  quarter. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Whenever  you  have  heard  enough  of  me,  just  tell 
me  to  stop. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  do  not  like  to  do  that.  Proceed,  Mr. 
Kauffman. 


STATEMENT  OF  LUTHER  S.  KAUFFMAN,  ESd.,  ATTORNEY  FOR  THE 
PURE  BUTTER  PROTECTIVE  ASSOCIATION,  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  first  let  me  say,  in  order  that  you 
may  know  that  I  am  speaking  from  experience  and  with  authority, 
just  who  I  am  and  just  what  I  represent,  and  what  experience  I  have 
had  in  relation  to  oleomargarine. 

I  am  the  attorney  of  the  Pure  Butter  Protective  Association.  My 
experience  in  this  matter  dates  back  to  November,  1890.  At  that  time 
I  was  retained  by  the  butter  dealers  of  Philadelphia — these  gentlemen, 
my  clients  then  as  now — to  enforce  the  law  against  oleomargarine  in 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  The  law  then  (that  of  May  21,  1885)  was 
an  absolutely  prohibitory  law.  That  law  had  been  passed  in  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania  because  although  two  prior  laws  had  been  passed,  one 
in  1878  and  an  amendment  in  1881,  which  permitted  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine and  butterine  if  properly  marked,  they  had  been  so  utterly 
inefficient  to  restrain  the  illegal  sale  of  oleomargarine  that  the  legis- 
lature of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  exercise  of  its  judgment,  passed  an 
absolutely  prohibitory  law  on  May  21,  1885,  absolutely  prohibiting 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  the  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

In  1890,  when  I  was  retained  by  the  butter  men  of  Philadelphia,  I 
found  just  this — that  the  whole  city  was  filled  with  oleomargarine. 
We  organized  a  detective  force,  and  sent  them  out,  and  we  found  that 
there  was  not  a  pound  of  oleomargarine,  as  far  as  the  experience  of  the 
detectives  was  concerned,  which  was  sold  as  oleomargarine.  Every- 
thing was  sold  as  and  for  pure  butter,  at  pure-butter  prices,  in 
unmarked  packages. 

Now,  mark  you,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  at  that  time,  in  1890, 
this  very  law  which  you  are  trying  to  amend,  that  of  August  2,  1886, 
had  been  in  existence  for  four  "years.  The  law  provides,  you  under- 
stand, that  every  retail  dealer  in  oleomargarine,  when  he  receives  his 
oleomargarine  from  the  factory,  shall  sell  it  out  of  a  stamped  package. 
He  must  make  up  his  new  wooden  or  paper  package,  and  mark  it 
clearly,  in  letters,  the  size  of  which  is  defined  by  the  act,  ''Oleomar- 
garine," one-half  pound,  or  1  pound,  as  the  case  may  be.  Then  he 
must  put  his  name  and  address  thereupon,  to  the  end  that  everybody 
may  be  advised  that  what  he  is  selling  is  oleomargarine,  and  not  butter. 

Now,  I  say  that  law  had  been  in  force  for  four  years.  The  penal- 
ties provided  for  under  it  were  drastic.  For  every  violation  of  that 
act,  the  law  provided  that  there  should  be  imposed  a  fine  not  exceed- 
ing $1,000,  and  imprisonment  for  not  exceeding  two  years.  It  was  a 


OLEOMAKGAEINE.  237 

dreadfully  drastic  law.  One  would  suppose  that  the  retail  dealers 
would  not  dare  to  violate  a  law  with  such  penalties,  a  fine  and  impris- 
onment, with  no  discretion  at  all  in  the  courts.  But  they  did  violate 
it,  and  apparently  with  impunity,  with  utter  defiance  of  the  law;  and 
the  consequence  was  that  when  I  began,  as  the  attorney  for  this  asso- 
ciation, to  bring  the  prosecutions  in  the  State  courts,  I  also  went  to 
the  United  States  court.  Now,  I  want  to  show  what  the  operation  of 
the  United  States  law  was. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Excuse  me — were  those  the  penalties  of  the  State 
law  or  of  the  national  law  ? 

Mr.  KATJFFMAN.  I  said  both.  I  am  going  to  talk  about  the  national 
law  now. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  But  were  the  penalties  to  which  you  refer  those 
under  the  national  law? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  refer  to  violators  of  both.  When  you  violate  the 
State  law,  you  also  violate  the  United  States  Jaw. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  But  I  refer  to  the  severe  penalties. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oh,  those  are  the  penalties  of  the  United  States 
law;  yes,  sir.  Under  the  State  law  the  penalty  was  fine  or  imprison- 
ment, at  the  discretion  of  the  court;  whereas  the  present  law  of  August 
2,  1886,  which  is  proposed  to  be  amended,  makes  the  penalty  fine  and 
imprisonment.  I  refer  to  section  6. 

I  went  to  the  revenue  authorities  in  1891,  and  1  called  their  atten- 
tion to  section  6  of  that  law.  There  never  had  been,  in  the  eastern 
district  of  Pennsylvania,  any  prosecution  by  the  revenue  authorities 
for  violation  of  that  act,  although  it  had  been  in  existence  for  four 
years.  We  presented  a  lot  of  evidence  of  violations  of  that  United 
States  law  to  the  revenue  officers,  and  they  absolutely  refused  to  swear 
out  the  warrants.  I  was  compelled  to  come  over  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  at  that  time  the  Hon.  Charles  Foster,  of  Ohio;  we  had 
to  summon  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  before  us ;  and  we 
compelled  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  to  issue  orders  to 
the  revenue  agents  in  Philadelphia  that  evidence  should  be  received 
and  the  warrants  sworn  out.  They  did  not  do  it  until  we  did  that  very 
thing.  Then,  when  the  evidence  was  submitted,  the  officers  performed 
their  duty,  and  we  convicted  and  sent  to  jail  the  men  against  whom  we 
brought  the  evidence;  and  that  stopped  the  illegal  traffic  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia.  We  drove  the  retailers  out  of  the  business.  We  cre- 
ated the  office  of  dairy  and  food  commissioner  of  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania in  1893,  and  then  that  association,  at  that  day,  went  out  of 
business,  because  this  department  had  been  created  to  accomplish  the 
same  end- 
Now,  to  show  you  how  fraudulently  this  traffic  is  carried  on,  not 
quite  two  years  ago  these  gentlemen  came  to  me,  in  February  of  1899, 
and  said:  "  Our  butter  trade  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  is  absolutely 
paralyzed.  We  can  not  sell  our  butter  in  midwinter.  It  is  coming 
into  the  market  and  going  to  the  cold-storage  warehouses,  and  we  can 
not  sell  it.  Why?  Because  the  oleomargarine  dealers  have  come  into 
this  market,  and  absolutely  taken  possession  of  the  market,  and  are 
selling  oleomargarine  as  and  for  butter,  and  pure  butter  can  not  be 
sold."  Is  not  that  true,  gentlemen? 

Again  we  began  to  enforce  the  law ;  and  we  put  our  detective  force 
to  work,  and  I  am  going  to  show  you  the  results  of  it  here,  the  cases 
that  we  found. 


238  OLEOMAEQARINE. 

We  found  again,  in  February  of  1899,  with  this  same  United  States 
law  still  in  force,  not  a  dealer  in  oleomargarine  in  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia but  who  was  selling  oleomargarine  as  and  for  butter;  and  the 
detectives  went  out  and  paid  butter  prices  for  it,  paying  as  high  as 
40  cents  a  pound  for  oleomargarine  bought  as  butter. 

i  have  the  cases  here.  There  [exhibiting  paper]  is  the  list  of  cases, 
with  the  date  of  purchase  and  the  name  and  address  of  the  party. 
These  are  purchases  made  during  that  time  by  this  association.  There 
they  are,  right  straight  along,  page  after  page — more  than  500  cases 
of  purchases  of  oleomargarine  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  I  am  going 
to  give  you  a  summary  of  them.  There  are  in  this  list  more  than  500 
cases  of  purchases  of  oleomargarine  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  The 
detectives,  in  every  single  case,  without  exception,  asked  for  butter; 
and  they  got  oleomargarine  at  butter  prices,  without  any  indication 
from  the  seller  that  it  was  oleomargarine.  There  you  have  a  fraud 
directly  upon  the  purchaser. 

Now,  let  me  give  you  a  summary  of  these  cases.  How  many  were 
marked?  There  are  508  cases  here.  I  have  the  details  there.  I  am 
not  talking  about  fupposititious  cases.  Every  case  is  there,  with  the 
name  and  date  and  the  result.  These  detectives  went  into  these 
places,  places  kept  by  men  who  were  supposed  to  be  selling  oleomar- 
garine, and  who  had  paid  revenue  taxes.  They  asked  for  butter. 
Five  hundred  and  eight  purchases  were  made.  Of  those  508  purchases, 
49  were  butter  and  459  were  oleomargarine. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  have  heard  a  great  many  theories,  but  one  ounce 
of  fact  is  worth  tons  of  theories.  That  is  a  fact.  There  was  not  a 
single  case  of  oleomargarine  sold  as  oleomargarine.  Of  this  large 
number  of  purchases  there  were  marked  surreptitiously,  marked  on 
the  packages  inside,  marked  with  the  word  "oleomargarine"  turned 
down,  perhaps  50  cases.  Oh,  if  I  were  to  go  on  to  tell  you  the 
trickery,  the  fraud,  the  schemes  resorted  to  to  deceive  the  purchasers, 
I  could  talk  to  you  here  for  two  hours.  But  I  will  not  go  into  such 
detail.  The  simple  statement  of  the  matter  is  that  every  one  of  these 
purchases  was  made  as  butter,  while  out  of  508  purchases  only  49  were 
butter  and  the  balance  were  oleomargarine. 

Now,  then,  is  it  true  that  if  you  simply  have  a  color  clause,  they  will 
obey  the  law?  No.  Why?  Just  as  the  Good  Book  says,  " The  love 
of  money  is  the^  root  of  all  evil,"  and  that  applies  to  this  oleo  traffic  as 
much  as  anything  else.  When  a  retail  dealer  can  get  oleomargarine 
at  11,  12,  or  13  cents  a  pound,  and  can  go  out  and  sell  it. for  30  and 
35  cents  a  pound  by  lying,  by  deceiving  the  public,  the  temptation  is 
greater  than  poor  human  nature  can  bear,  and  he  does  it.  Why,  there 
in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  Mr.  Chairman,  before  we  began  this  crusade 
a  year  and  a  half  ago,  there  were  hucksters  with  no  capital  whatsoever, 
having  an  old  horse  and  an  old  wagon,  who  would  buy  olemargarine 
from  the  wholesale  dealers  at  14  and  15  cents  a  pound,  and  go  among 
our  citizens,  represent  themselves  as  farmers  from  Bucks  and  Chester, 
our  adjoining  counties,  get  up  a  butter  route,  and  sell  this  stuff  as  but- 
ter, as  if  they  were  from  the  farms.  They  would  sell  1,000  pounds  a 
week,  on  which  they  made  an  average  of  -from  10  to  15  cents  a  pound 
profit.  You  can  see  what  they  did.  A  thousand  pounds  at  10  cents 
would  be  $100  a  week,  with  a  capital  of  $200  or  $300  invested. 

How  in  the  world  can  anybody  compete  with  men  who  can  buy  stuff 
of  that  kind  and  sell  it  fraudulently  ? 


OLEOMARGAKINE.  239 

Now,  let  us  look  at  this  thing  for  a  moment,  and  see  where  we 
stand.  I  think  the  very  statement  of  this  fact  shows  the  fraud  in  the 
retail  trade.  Are  the  wholesalers  any  the  less  to  be  censured  ?  Let 
us  see. 

We  have  driven  lots  of  these  poor  fellows  out  of  the  business. 
When  we  began  this  crusade  in  1899,  162  retail  dealers  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia  had  paid  the  special  revenue  tax.  Now  there  are  about 
32  for  this  year,  and  the  rest  are  out.  Some  we  have  put  in  jail, 
some  we  have  fined  very  heavily,  and  the  rest  are  out  of  the  business. 
I  could  count  scores  of  men  who  have  been  selling  oleomargarine  who 
are  no  longer  selling  it.  They  have  learned  that  the  way  of  the  trans- 
gressor is  hard,  and  they  do  not  sell  it. 

Now,  let  us  look  to  the  wholesalers.  In  the  first  place,  the  whole- 
salers, to  help  the  retailers  to  defraud  in  this  matter,  do  what?  Why, 
some  of  these  wholesalers  adopt  fancy  creamery  names  for  their  prod- 
uct. "Lakeside  creamery!"  Where  is  the  creamery?  " Lakeside 
creamery ! "  Oleomargarine !  But  the  word  oleomargarine  is  not  left  on 
it.  The  only  place  where  the  name  "oleomargarine"  appears  is  in  the 
Government  stamp.  And  then  what?  Why,  these  honest  manufac- 
turers, desiring  to  spread  the  sale  of  an  illegitimate  article  of  produc- 
tion that  everybody  may  know,  go  to  work  and  cover  the  original 
packages,  when  they  ship  them  from  Chicago,  with  brown-paper  cov- 
ering. They  put  them  in  bags,  in  burlap,  covered  all  over;  and  this 
product  comes  to  Philadelphia  so  that  nobody  sees  the  Government 
stamps  at  all.  And  one  manufacturer  goes  to  work  and  puts  up  ten- 
pound  packages,  and  puts  half  a  dozen  of  them  in  a  crate,  and  ships 
them  in,  and  puts  the  Government  stamp  on  the  bottom  of  the  crate, 
so  that  the  public  will  never  see  the  Government  stamp. 

They  put  the  oleomargarine  in  such  a  shape,  understand,  that  the 
retailer  can  go  to  work  immediately  and  sell  it  as  butter.  There  is 
not  a  mark  upon  it,  as  far  as  the  wholesaler  is  concerned,  inside. 

Now,  you  asked  me  the  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  my  friend  here 
has  asked  the  question,  whether  or  not,  if  we  will  put  it  in  the  original 
package,  they  can  sell  it  in  that  way.  Now,  we  say,  if  you  manufacture 
oleomargarine  in  the  semblance  of  butter,  there  is  no  legislation  what- 
soever that  will  prevent  the  retailer,  if  disposed  to  be  dishonest,  if  dis- 
posed to  sell  butter  at  butter  prices,  from  effacing  the  marks,  and 
selling  it  as  butter.  There  is  only  one  thing  that  will  accomplish  the 
result  we  are  seeking,  and  that  is  to  make  the  color  of  this  material  so 
distinctly  different  from  that  of  genuine  butter  that  the  purchaser, 
when  he  sees  it,  will  instantly  see  that  it  is  not  pure  yellow  butter. 
That  is  the  only  thing. 

Now,  if,  according  to  the  Wads  worth  bill,  oleomargarine  shall  be 
put  up  in  these  1  and  2  pound  prints  and  colored  and  sent  on, 
what  will  happen  ?  The  Wadsworth  bill  provides  for  another  fatal 
thing,  and  that  is  that  each  one  of  those  little  packages,  1  pound 
and  2  pounds,  is  to  be  an  original  package.  What  does  that  mean, 
gentlemen?  It  means  a  great  deal  more  than  at  first  sight  might 
appear.  If  it  is  an  original  package,  then  there  is  no  let  or  hindrance 
to  selling  it  anywhere  in  any  State,  because  of  the  interstate-commerce 
law.  That  is  exactly  the  bone  of  contention.  If  we  had  not  that 
interstate-commerce  law  to  contend  with  we  could  prevent  the  sale 
and  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 
But  the  very  defect  of  our  old  prohibitory  law  was  that  the  manufac- 


240  OLEOMARGARINE. 

turers  from  Chicago  could  sell  their  material  into  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania because  it  was  an  original  package.  Now,  if  you  pass  the 
Wadsworth  bill  reducing  the  size  of  the  original  packages  to  1  and 
2  pounds,  it  will  simply  open  wide  the  door  for  the  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine in  original  packages  of  1  or  2  pounds;  and  no  law  of  any  State 
could  interfere  with  its  sale  under  any  circumstances. 

Why,  this  Wadsworth  bill  would  be  vastly  more  damaging  than  any 
legislation  that  Congress  could  enact  in  relation  to  this  subject.  It 
would  thoroughly  and  absolutely  establish  the  oleomargarine  trade  in 
this  country,  and  no  State  could  interfere  with  it  in  any  way  whatsoever. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Colored  oleomargarine,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes;  colored  oleomargarine. 

Now,  gentlemen,  let  us  look  at  the  facts.  Who  are  asking  here  for 
the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill,  and  who  are  opposing  it? 

The  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  say  that  we  are  interfering  with 
their  trade.  Why,  the  shoe  is  just  on  the  other  foot.  It  is  the  oleo- 
margarine business  that  is  interfering  with  the  butter  trade.  The 
butter  trade  was  here  long  before  the  oleomargarine  men  were  here. 
The  butter  trade  has  been  here  since  the  country  has  been  here.  The 
oleomargarine  interest  has  only  sprung  up  within  the  last  twenty-five 
years.  It  is  they  who  are  interfering  with  the  butter  trade,  not  the 
butter  trade  interfering  with  the  oleomargarine  trade  by  any  means. 

What  do  we  ask?  We  ask  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
having  recognized  oleomargarine  as  a  legitimate  article  of  traffic,  shall 
simply  prohibit  the  sale  of  a  fraudulent  article  in  semblance  of  butter. 

Who  asks  for  that?  The  dairymen  of  the  United  States.  Who  are 
they?  The  farmers,  the  creamery  men  of  the  United  States.  What 
does  that  interest  amount  to?  Why,  1  have  some  figures  here  from 
the  report  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  for  1899  which  show  that 
there  were  last  year  11,000,000  cows  in  the  United  States  in  the  dairy 
industry,  and  that  the  product  of  these  11,000,000  cows  amounted,  in 
round  numbers,  to  $500,000,000. 

In  my  State  of  Pennsylvania  we  have  a  thousand  creameries.  There 
are,  on  an  average,  a  hundred  farmers  who  are  the  patrons  of  those 
creameries,  delivering  milk  to  them  every  day;  that  means  100,000 
farmers  are  interested  in  the  production  of  butter  in  my  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania. These  100,000  farmers  added  to  their  fellows  all  through 
the  United  States  constitute  a  vast  army  of  producers  asking  for  the 
passage  of  this  bill  to  prevent  a  fraudulent  article  from  interfering 
with  a  legitimate  product. 

Now,  who  is  on  the  other  side  ?     Seventeen  manufacturers. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Twenty-six  now,  Mr.  Kauffman. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Well,  that  is  under  the  late  law.  The  last  report 
I  had  gave  the  number  as  IT. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Allow  me  to  correct  you,  Mr.  Knight.  There  were  27 
the  30th  of  last  June,  and  there  are  now  more — I  do  not  know  how 
many  more. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Well,  I  will  take  the  best  statement  for  them. 
They  can  make  it  27,  or,  say,  30.  Suppose  there  are  30  men  with 
unlimited  capital,  largely  confined,  three-quarters  of  them,  to  the  cat- 
tle slaughterers  of  the  West.  These  few  men,  as  against  the  great  army 
of  producers  I  have  named,  come  to  you  and  ask  you  for  protection 
for  a  counterfeit  article.  That  is  all  there  is  to  it.  We  say  that  men 
are  worth  more  than  money.  We  say  that  this  great  army  of  pro- 


OLEOMARGARINE.  241 

ducers  through  the  United  States  is  more  to  be  considered  than  accu- 
mulated capital  in  the  hands  of  a  few  men.  We  say  that  these  producers 
of  the  genuine  article  have  a  right  to  protection  against  a  fraud  which 
seeks  to  dig  away  the  very  foundation  of  legitimate  traffic. 

Let  us  look  at  this  thing  for  one  moment.  Counterfeit  money  is  manu- 
factured in  this  country.  It  is  a  counterfeit.  It  employs  labor;  it 
employs  paper;  it  employs  ink;  it  employs  presses  to  manufacture  it; 
and  as  far  as  the  money  is  concerned,  if  the  man  who  gets  it  believes 
it  ie  genuine,  it  is  just  as  good  as  good  money.  If  you  get  a  counter- 
feit ten-dollar  bill,  and  you  can  buy  something  with  it  or  pay  a  debt 
with  it,  it  is  just  as  good  as  genuine  money.  It  is  good  until  it  is 
found  out  that  it  is  not  genuine  money;  and  the  moment  it  is  found 
out  that  it  is  counterfeit,  then  it  ceases  to  be  good. 

Suppose  the  counterfeiters  of  this  country  should  so  increase  their 
business,  by  reason  of  capital,  that  they  should  come  to  this  Congress 
and  say :  ' 4  We  demand  protection,  because  we  have  got  money  invested 
in  this  thing  and  it  is  profitable.  We  are  employing  so  many  men; 
we  are  using  so  much  manufactured  paper;  we  use  so  much  ink;  we 
use  so  many  presses,  and  we  demand  protection  for  counterfeit  money 
because  there  is  money  in  it." 

That  is  the  only  reason  oleomargarine  manufacturers  can  come  here 
and  demand  protection  for  a  fraud,  because  there  is  money  in  it.  Now, 
it  is  not  right.  All  the  butter  producers  of  this  country  want  is  pro- 
tection against  a  fraud.  That  is  all. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  have  heard  this  morning  about  oleomarga- 
rine being  healthful.  We  say  that  that  question  is  in  doubt;  but  we 
do  say  that  if  any  man  believes  it  to  be  healthful,  and  wants  to  buy 
oleomargarine  and  use  it,  believing  it  to  be  healthful,  he  ought  to  have 
a  right  to  do  it;  but  as  to  its  being  healthful,  that  is  a  question  in  doubt. 
Will  you  pardon  me  for  a  moment  if  I  read  to  you  from  a  Government 
authority  as  to  that,  because  you  must  understand  just  what  this  prod- 
uct is.  Permit  me  to  read  to  you  from  this  Government  report : 

[At  this  point  Mr.  Kauffman  read  from  a  paper  on  u  Butter  substi- 
tutes," by  E.  A.  De  Schweinitz,  of  the  Biochemic  Laboratory,  Bureau 
of  Animal  Industry,  the  same  being  reprinted  from  the  Yearbook  of 
the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  for  1895.] 

"The  point  next  to  be  considered  is  the  possibility  of  the  transmis- 
sion of  infectious  diseases  by  oleomargarine  made  from  impure  mate- 
rials. That  such  can  occur  is  undoubtedly  true.  A  comparison  of  the 
germs  present  in  oleomargarine  and  butter  showed  three  times  as 
many  in  the  one  as  in  the  other,  with  a  difference  in  the  character  of 
the  germs.  The  germs  in  the  butter  were  the  harmless  ones  found  in 
milk  and  necessary  for  the  production  of  a  good  butter.  Those  in  the 
oleomargarine  were  fungi  and  numerous  varieties  of  bacteria. 

"The  writer  has  made  a  number  of  inoculation  experiments  upon 
guinea  pigs  with  different  samples  of  oleomargarine.  The  samples 
were  purchased  in  open  market,  near  the  places  where  they  were 
manufactured.  Sample  No.  3  (102)  proved  fatal,  causing  the  death  of 
the  animal  in  the  one  instance  in  two  months,  in  the  other  in  two 
weeks.  An  examination  showed  the  lungs  congested,  the  liver  soft 
and  pale,  one  of  the  kidneys  badly  congested,  and  five  distinct  ulcers 
in  the  intestines  like  typhoid-fever  ulcers.  The  bladder  was  distended 
and  urine  albuminous.  At  the  present  writing  the  nature  of  this  dis- 
ease has  not  been  determined,  but  the  fatal  effects  were  produced  by  the 

S.  Rep.  2043 16 


242  OLEOMARGARINE. 

oleomargarine.  Another  guinea  pig  inoculated  with  a  sample  (No.  1) 
of  oleo  oil,  taken  from  a  lot  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine, 
died  within  three  weeks,  the  autopsy  showing  badly  congested  lungs, 
liver  dark,  blood  vessels  congested,  and  the  small  intestines  containing 
bloody  mucus." 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Would  not  the  effect  have  been  the  same  if  you  had 
inoculated  these  animals  with  creamery  butter  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No,  sir.  Now,  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  if 
oleomargarine  bought  in  the  open  market  has  that  effect  upon  guinea 
pigs  it  will  have  the  same  effect  upon  human  beings. 

Mr.  MILLER.  May  I  ask  a  question  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  MILLER.  How  about  the  150,000  people  who  die  every  year 
from  tuberculosis,  and  how  about  the  large  number  of  cases  where  it 
is  caused  from  eating  butter  and  drinking  milk,  and  so  forth  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  will  answer  that  question.  How  about  the  large 
number  of  people  who  die  from  diseases  that  come  from  eating  oleo- 
margarine when  they  do  not  know  anything  about  it? 

Mr.  MILLER.  There  are  none. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  None?  [Laughter.]  There  are  lots  of  people  who 
die  every  year  of  tapeworm  and  similar  diseases  transmitted  by 
oleomargarine. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Kauffman,  do  you  not  know  that  the  oleo  oil  and 
neutral  lard  of  which  butterine  is  composed  are  heated  to  such  a  tem- 
perature that  it  kills  the  germs?  Do  you  know  that? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  know  that,  because  it  is  a  cold 
process. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  Professor  Wiley,  of  the  Agricultural  Depart- 
ment, says  it  is  true.  He  ought  to  know.  I  think  he  is  an  authority; 
don't  you? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Well,  Professor  Heffman,  of  Philadelphia,  who  is 
equally  an  authority,  says  just  the  opposite — that  the  process  is  con- 
ducted at  such  a  comparatively  low  temperature  that  it  does  not  kill 
the  germs.  And  that  is  one  of  the  difficulties  in  the  manufacture.  It 
is  a  cold  process.  Why,  the  very  process  you  start  from  is  a  cold 
process,  and  you  do  not  heat  the  materials  above  120°  Fahrenheit. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  we  have  to  take  the  opinion  of  the  man  who  is 
considered  the  best  scientist  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Now,  let  me  say  another  thing,  Mr.  Chairman. 
When  the  opinions  of  chemists  are  given  we  must  remember  that 
chemists  are  not  physiologists.  Chemists  can  tell  you  what  the  con- 
stituent parts  of  oleomargarine  are;  but  not  being  physicians,  they  are 
not  competent  to  tell  what  the  physiological  action  of  oleomargarine 
is.  Now,  then,  we  have  in  Philadelphia  a  chemist,  Professor  Heffman, 
who  is  both  a  physician  and  a  chemist,  and  he  says  that  the  question 
of  the  healthfulness  of  oleomargarine  is  as  yet  undetermined.  He  is 
both  a  chemist  and  a  physician.  The  fact  of  the  matter,  then,  is  that 
the  best  that  can  be  said  about  the  healthfulness  of  oleomargarine 
to-day  is  that  it  is  not  yet  determined  positively.  The  facts  are  that 
the  opinions  of  chemists,  as  a  rule,  as  presented  by  oleomargarine  fac- 
tories, are  based  upon  samples  of  the  very  best  oleomargarine  they 
produce,  and  it  is  not  the  ordinary  oleomargarine  that  is  sold  in  the 
market.  Therefore  that  accounts  for  the  difference  between  certain 
statements.  When  the  oleomargarine  men  want  to  have  a  nice  state- 


OLEOMAKGAEINE.  243 

ment  they  make  up  the  very  best  sample  of  oleomargarine  they  have 
got,  put  into  it  a  certain  percentage  of  butter  in  order  to  make  it  as 
near  like  butter  as  possible,  take  it  to  a  chemist,  and  ask  him  to  analyze 
it;  and  of  course  it  is  good.  But  go  out  in  the  open  market  and  buy 
the  oleomargarine  that  is  sold  in  the  open  market,  and  the  results  are 
entirely  different  from  the  analysis  of  the  chemist  on  a  special  sample — 
entirely  different. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  oppose  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  when 
colored  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  because  the  temptation  is  con- 
stantly to  sell  that  article  as  and  for  butter,  and  the  temptation  is  too 
great  for  ordinary  human  nature  to  resist,  because  of  the  money  in  it. 
And  the  better  the  price  that  butter  brings,  the  greater  the  temptation. 
But  now  we  say,  "Add  10  cents  a  pound  to  the  price  of  this  product 
in  the  shape  of  a  tax,  and  there  is  not  so  much  temptation  to  make 
that  money."  Why  should  not  10  cents  a  pound  be  added  to  it?  Why 
do  we  pass  our  protective-tariff  bills  ?  Why  do  we  impose  protective 
tariffs  upon  products  brought  from  foreign  countries  except  to  give 
protection  to  our  American  industries  ?  Here  is  an  industry  which 
competes  with  another  industry  that  has  been  established  for  years. 
Why  ought  not  the  farmers  who  have  been  in  this  .industry,  these 
farmers  whose  all  depends  upon  the  butter  trade,  to  have  that  protec- 
tion? 

Now,  what  can  our  oleomargarine  men  complain  of?  They  have 
their  choice.  We  say  to  them,  "If  you  want  to  color  oleomargarine 
and  compete  with  butter,  then  pay  10  cents  a  pound  to  the  Govern- 
ment for  that  privilege.  If  you  think  that  money  can  be  made  by 
selling  colored  oleomargarine,  pay  a  revenue  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound 
for  it,  and  come  in  on  equal  terms,  in  a  fair  competition  in  the  market, 
and  sell  your  product.  But  if  you  think  that  that  is  too  big  a  tax, 
you  are  not  compelled  to  pay  it.  Then  manufacture  your  uncolored 
oleomargarine  and  pay  a  quarter  of  a  cent  a  pound  for  it.  '  You  pays 
your  money,'  as  the  Dutchman  says,  'and  you  takes  your  choice;'  that 
is  all." 

If  oleomargarine  is  a  healthful  product,  if  the  people  want  it,  the 
matter  of  color  has  not  anything  to  do  with  it.  If  people  want 
oleomargarine  they  will  buy  it  as  oleomargarine  without  the  color. 
They  are  not  eating  color.  They  want  oleomargarine,  we  are  told, 
because  it  is  such  an  absolutely  healthful  and  nutritious  article.  It  is 
better  than  butter,  as  our  friends  maintain.  They  prefer  it  to  butter, 
as  our  friends  maintain.  Then,  for  heaven's  sake,  let  the  people  have 
it  at  this  reduced  price.  Let  them  get  this  very  superior  article  at  a 
price  that  is  within  their  reach;  and  let  these  manufacturers  spend 
their  millions  to  advertise  the  advantages  of  this  delightful  and  supe- 
rior and  healthful  article,  and  to  induce  people  to  buy  it  instead  of 
the  vile  butter! 

That  is  what  they  ought  to  do.  Why,  we  do  not  interfere  with  their 
rights,  Mr.  Chairman.  All  we  ask  them  to  do  is  to  manufacture  good 
goods — to  manufacture  oleomargarine  out  of  good  materials.  Do  not 
put  any  color  in  it.  Sell  it  for  oleomargarine.  Teach  the  people  that 
oleomargarine  is  better  than  butter.  Sell  it  as  oleomargarine,  and 
not  as  butter.  But  if  you  do  not  want  to  do  that,  put  your  coloring 
in,  and  pay  the  Government  10  cents  a  pound  for  it.  Come  in  and 
sell  it  as  oleomargarine,  colored,  and  come  in  free  competition  with 
butter — a  free  and  fair  fight  for  all. 


244  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a  question? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  say  that  we  could  sell  colored  oleomar- 
garine in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  by  paying  the  10  cents  extra  tax, 
if  we  so  desired  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Not  under  our  present  law;  no,  you  could  not. 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  You  would  have  as  much  profit  as  the  butter  man 
has. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  we  would  have  no  right  to  sell  colored  oleo- 
margarine in  your  State,  in  any  event. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No,  sir;  and  we  do  not  propose  that  you  shall  have 
the  right  to  sell  it  there,  either,  as  colored  oleomargarine.  But  that 
is  not  the  question.  There  are  States  where  you  can  sell  it. 

Now,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  question  of  desire  to  obey  the 
law.  According  to  the  statement  made  by  somebody  here  this  morn- 
ing, 107,000,000  of  pounds  of  oleomargarine  are  manufactured  annu- 
ally in  the  United  States.  Where  is  it  sold?  Why,  it  is  on  the  stands 
everywhere.  It  is  sold — where?  Largely  in  the  States  prohibiting  or 
restricting  the  sale  of  oleomargarine.  How  is  that  ?  Simply  because 
the  men  who  sell  this  stuff  are  law-defying  and  not  law-obeying  men; 
that  is  all.  These  manuf  acturors,  these  dealers,  know  that  it  has  been 
against  the  law  to  sell  oleomargarine  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  in 
years  gone  by,  because  of  the  prohibitory  law.  They  know  that  it  is 
against  the  law  to  sell  oleomargarine  now  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  yet  they  defy  the  law.  Would  law-abiding  men  do  that  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a  question  right  there  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  think  he  ought  to  take  into  consideration  the  fact 
that  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  up  to  the  passage  of  the  present  law 
in  May,  1899,  the  lawyers  and  the  courts  disputed  the  question  as  to 
whether  this  legislation  was  constitutional  or  not,  and  the  sellers  of 
oleomargarine  were  advised  on  the  one  hand  that  it  was  not  a  valid 
law;  and  those  who  took  that  position  were  finally  sustained  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  Shallenberger  case,  which 
decision  declared  that  that  law  was  invalid.  Then  the  legislature  passed 
another  law.  So  that  those  people  who  you  say  were  violators  of  the 
law  up  to  the  act  of  May,  1899,  were  not  violating  any  law  at  all,  as 
the  Supreme  Court  has  since  held. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Well,  sir,  I  must  correct  you.  You  are  simply 
misinformed  about  the  decision.  Let  me  say  that  in  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania, under  the  law  of  May  21,  1885,  the  situation  was  this— and 
I  had  the  honor  to  carry  the  fight  all  the  way  up  to  the  higher  courts : 
The  supreme  court  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  held  that  the  law  was  perfectly  constitutional  in  so  far 
as  it  related  to  the  retail  dealers  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  but  that  it 
was  only  unconstitutional  in  so  far  as  it  related  to  the  original  packages 
manufactured  in  another  State  and  coming  into  the  State  of  Penns}Tl- 
vania.  It  only  affected  the  wholesalers — not  the  retailers.  I  argued 
the  question  before  our  State  courts;  and  pur  supreme  court  affirmed 
the  constitutionality  of  the  act  also  in  relation  to  the  wholesale  dealers. 
But  there  never  has  been  a  time,  since  the  passage  of  that  law  of  1885, 
when,  so  far  as  the  retail  dealers  were  concerned,  it  was  legal  for  oleo- 
margarine to  be  sold. 


OLEOMAEGARINE.  245 

Mr.  GROUT.  It  was  the  interstate  commerce  point  that  the  case  was 
decided  on. 

Mr.  KATJFFMAN.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Every  pound  of  oleomargarine  that  was  sold  from 
1885  to  1899  in  the  original  package  was  legally  sold. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  It  was  legally  sold,  yes,  except  that  our  State 
supreme  court  had  decided  otherwise.  I  argued  the  question  before 
the  supreme  court,  and  they  decided  my  way;  but  that  decision  was 
reversed  in  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  Still,  the  retail  sale 
was  always  and  has  always  been  regarded  as  illegal;  and  even  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  that  decision  in  the  case  of 
the  Commonwealth  v.  Shallenberger,  affirmed  the  fact'  that  the  law  was 
constitutional  as  far  as  the  retail  dealers  were  concerned. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Will  you  pardon  an  interruption  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Did  you  ever  know  of  any  kind  of  an  oleomargarine 
law  being  passed  the  constitutionality  of  which  was  not  questioned 
by  the  oleomargarine  dealers? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Not  one. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  They  have  a  right  to  question  it,  too. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  have  they  the  right  to  go  on  and  do  business 
while  questioning  it? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  They  have  a  right  to  go  into  the  courts  and  ask  for 
the  decisions  of  the  courts,  and  abide  by  them. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes;  but  they  have  not  any  right,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  when  a  law  is  enacted,  to  keep  on  defying  the  law  until  the  law  is 
passed  upon.  A  man  has  not  any  right  to  carry  on  a  manifestly  illegal 
business  when  it  is  prohibited  by  law.  It  is  his  business  to  stop  car- 
rying on  that  business  until  the  courts  decide  the  disputed  question. 

Now,  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  act,  the  Grout  bill,  particularly 
remedies  this  original-package  feature.  Mark  you,  the  Wadsworth 
bill  distinctly  makes  the  1-pound  and  the  2-pound  packages  original 
packages.  If  that  provision  w  ere  to  pass — and  that  is  the  viciousness  of 
the  Wadsworth  bill — it  would  absolutely  and  positively  prevent  any 
State  from  passing  any  law  in  relation  to  oleomargarine,  because  the 
packages  are  cut  down  to  1  and  2  pound  packages,  and  under  the  inter- 
state law  nothing  whatsoever  could  be  done  in  the  States  to  restrict 
their  sale.  Where  would  we  be  then  ?  What  is  the  effect  of  oleomar- 
garine upon  these  butter  dealers  and  these  farmers?  Let  me  tell  you. 

As  I  said  a  little  while  ago,  in  February  of  1899  the  butter  trade  at 
Philadelphia  was  absolutely  paralyzed.  The  dealers  here  will  testify 
to  that  fact.  We  began  to  enforce  the  law  which  we  had.  Now,  what 
was  the  result?  We  have  advanced  the  price  of  butter  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia,  in  the  wholesale  market,  on  an  average  of  5  cents  a 
pound  over  what  it  was  two  years  ago,  before  we  began  to  enforce 
this  law,  simply  because  we  have  driven  out  the  illegal  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine. More  than  that,  the  price  of  cows  in  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania, because  of  the  driving  out  of  this  illegal  competition  of 
oleomargarine,  has  advanced  from  25  to  40  per  cent.  If  oleo  had 
been  permitted  to  remain  in  the  market,  being  sold  illegally  as  and  for 
butter,  the  price  of  farms  would  have  kept  on  going  downward,  the 
price  of  cows  would  have  kept  on  going  downward,  and  the  price  of 
butter  would  have  been  going  downward.  Now,  I  am  going  to  say, 


246  OLEOMAEGAKINE. 

further  than  this,  that  in  the  years  gone  by,  from  1895  up  to  1899, 
numbers  of  creamery  men  were  driven  out  of  business  because  of  the 
competition  of  oleomargarine — driven  clean  out  of  business;  and  it  is 
only  in  the  past  two  years  that  the  tide  has  changed. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Do  you  think  that  4  per  cent  of  the  whole  product 
will  materially  interfere  with  a  business  that  amounts  to  two  billions 
of  pounds  annually  ? 

Mr.  KAUFMAN.  Oh,  I  will  answer  that  question.  I  was  shifted  off 
from  what  I  wanted  to  say.  Where  is  oleomargarine  sold?  There 
are  107,000,000  pounds  manufactured?  Where  is  it  sold?  In  the 
States  where  the  restrictive  legislation  has  come  in.  In  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  not  less  than  from  twelve  to  twenty  millions  of  pounds 
are  sold,  in  defiance  of  both  United  States  and  State  law ;  and  they  are 
sold  as  butter — that  is  where  this  stuff  is  sold.  Why  do  not  these 
gentlemen  sell  it  otherwise  ?  They  come  into  a  dairy  State  in  defiance 
of  law,  and  sell  it  there.  How  do  I  know  ? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  say  12,000,000  pounds  of  butter  are 
manufactured  in  your  State.  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No;  I  say  sold  in  our  State. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  butter,  or  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oleomargarine.  I  say  there  are  about  12,000,000 
pounds  of  oleomargarine  sold  in  our  State.  How  do  I  know  that? 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Why  is  so  much  sold  there,  and  so  little  sold  in 
New  York? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Mr.  Flanders  has  gone,  but  I  will  tell  you  why. 
Because  the  laws  in  our  State  have  not  been  enforced  as  they  ought  to 
have  been. 

Mr.  GROUT.  And  yet  you  are  making  an  appropriation  of  $60,000  a 
year  to  enforce  the  law? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Two  hundred  and  forty  thousand  dollars  a  year,  Mr. 
Grout. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Not  for  this  law  alone. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No. 

Mr.  GROUT.  There  are  $60,000  a  year,  as  I  understand,  appropriated 
and  assigned  to  the  enforcement  of  the  oleomargarine  laws  in  New 
York;  and  that  has  been  the  case  for  half  a  dozen  years  or  more. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes,  sir;  but  in  our  State  there  was  an  appropria- 
tion of  $12,500  a  year,  which  makes  all  the  difference  in  the  world, 
of  course.  Then  there  were  some  disputes  as  to  the  construction  of 
the  law,  etc.  But  the  laws,  for  some  reason  or  other,  were  not 
enforced;  and  because  of  that  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  simply 
flooded  the  States  with  their  agents,  who  have  proceeded  to  induce 
small  dealers  to  embark  in  this  business.  I  have  been  told,  over  and 
over  again,  by  retail  dealers  who  have  come  to  me  begging  for  mercy, 
' '  We  have  been  led  into  this  thing.  The  wholesalers  have  come  to 
us  and  said,  'You  can  go  into  this  business;  the  law  is  no  good;  you 
can  go  into  it  with  perfect  safety  and  we  will  take  care  of  you,  and 
pay  all  your  legal  costs,  and  your  fine.  Go  into  the  business."'  And 
because  of  the  profits,  and  these  people  not  knowing  any  better,  they 
are  led  into  it  by  the  wholesalers.  They  furnish  them  the  stamps  and 
tell  them  all  the  schemes.  Why,  I  have  in  my  office  an  application 
given  to  me  by  a  retail  dealer,  who  brought  it  to  me,  and  said  that  a 
wholesaler  had  given  it  to  him,  and  said,  "Now,  go  to  work  and  make 
out  your  application  for  the  revenue  license  in  the  name  of  some 


OLEOMARGARINE.  247 

creamery  company."  Oh,  there  are  lots  of  "creamery  companies" 
not  handling  a  pound  of  pure  butter  in  Philadelphia.  There  are  not 
so  many  of  them  as  there  used  to  be,  because  some  of  them  have  been 
put  in  jail  and  fined,  and  we  have  driven  some  of  them  out.  But  these 
wholesalers  come  and  induce  these  poor  fellows  to  go  into  the  business, 
because  they  think  that  the  law  will  not  be  enforced  and  they  will  be 
protected  against  prosecutions. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Will  you  permit  a  question  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Certainly — a  dozen  of  them. 

Mr.  JELKE.  What  stamp  is  this  that  the  manufacturers  use? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  The  manufacturers  would  come  and  give  them  a 
revenue  stamp,  and  show  them  how  to  use  it,  and  tell  them  how  they 
might  use  it. 

Mr.  JELKE.  What  was  on  the  stamp,  please? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  "Oleomargarine";  and  then  they  go  to  work,  as 
was  the  case  with  one  fellow  we  convicted  before  the  United  States 
court  only  last  term,  and  tell  them  how  to  violate  the  law. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Was  the  stamp  made  in  accordance  with  the  law — the 
proper  size,  and  so  forth  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oh,  yes,  sometimes — sometimes. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  is  not  the  tax  stamp  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oh,  no — not  what  is  called  the  tax  stamp.  It  is 
the  stamp  that  the  present  United  States  law  requires  to  be  put  right 
on  the  wrapper.  Now,  to  show  you  one  of  the  schemes  they  have  got 
to  deceive  people,  to  show  you  just  how  deceptive  they  are,  there  was 
one  dealer  in  Philadelphia  who  thought  he  was  very  sharp.  He  went 
to  work,  and  he  put  the  stamp  right  across  that  corner  [indicating]. 
Then  he  folded  it  down  in  that  way  [indicating]. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Oh,  he  folded  it  very  many  more  times  than  that— he 
folded  it  in  three  or  four  times. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes;  he  did.  Our  people  would  go  in  and  ask  for 
butter,  and  they  would  get  ' '  butter; "  and  when  they  would  go  out  and 
look  it  over  they  could  not  find  anything  about  oleomargarine  upon  it 
until  they  turned  down  the  corner  and  looked  underneath  there,  and  then 
they  found  the  word  "oleomargarine"  hidden  away  there.  And  we 
convicted  that  fellow  because,  although  he  supposed  his  little  scheme 
complied  with  the  law,  the  courts  differed  with  him. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Would  that  customer  go  back  to  that  store,  do  you 
think? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  It  does  not  make  any  difference  whether  he  would 
do  that  or  not;  he  was  deceived,  and  he  was  defrauded — willfully 
deceived  and  defrauded — because  the  very  fact  that  the  dealer  had  the 
acuteness  to  do  that  showed  that  he  intended  to  do  it. 

Now  let  me  show  you  another  trick.  Oleomargarine  is  wrapped  in 
parchment  paper  or  thin  paper.  There  is  another  dealer  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia  (he  is  doing  it  now,  and  we  are  going  to  convict  him 
before  the  United  States  court)  who  goes  to  work  and  stamps  on  this 
thin  paper  "Oleomargarine."  He  puts  that  stamp  right  next  to  the 
oleomargarine,  in  that  way  [indicating].  The  moisture  in  the  oleo- 
margarine absorbs  the  stamp,  and  by  the  time  the  purchaser  has  it  in 
his  possession  for  a  few  minutes  you  can  not  see  it  unless  you  hold  it 
up  to  the  light,  and  then  you  can  see  very  faintly  "Oleomargarine." 
It  is  so  faint  as  not  to  be  discernible. 

Why,  it  is  deception  on  the  face  of  it.     And  that  is  only  one  of  a 


248  OLEOMAKGAKINE. 

multitude  of  schemes  by  which  these  oleomargarine  dealers  try  to  com- 
ply with  the  law,  technically,  and  yet  deceive  the  people.  It  is  fraud 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 

Now,  then,  we  urge,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  Grout  bill  shall  be 
passed,  for  two  reasons: 

First,  that  it  will  prevent  fraud — that  is  all.  If  the  oleomargarine 
dealers  are  honest  in  their  desire  to  push  a  legitimate  product,  we  say 
that  they  can  sell  oleomargarine  on  its  merits,  pure  and  simple,  and 
advertise  it  and  create  a  demand  for  it.  If  they  want  the  advantage 
of  having  oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter,  if  they 
think  that  will  make  the  sale  better,  then  they  ought,  because  their 
product  costs  so  much  less  than  ours,  just  as  foreign  goods  are  put  on 
a  par  with  ours,  to  pay  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  such  a 
tax  as  to  make  it  an  equal  and  fair  competition. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Pardon  me.  If  you  can  sell  oleomargarine  on  its 
merits  without  color  just  as  well,  why  not  sell  butter  on  its  merits 
without  color  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Well,  there  are  a  great  many  men  who  do. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  does  not  come  out  with  a  much  better  color  than 
oleomargarine,  as  I  understand. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No;  and  there  are  some  men  who  sell  purely  white 
butter.  I  think  some  gentleman  on  the  committee  this  morning  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  some  of  the  first-class  hotels  are  serving 
white,  unsalted  butter.  That  is  simply  a  question  of  taste.  But  the 
whole  question  that  is  at  stake  in  this  matter  is  not  a  question  of  taste; 
it  is  a  question  of  legitimate  trade  and  fraud. 

Secondly,  there  is  the  question  of  allowing  to  the  States  that  juris- 
diction, as  a  police  measure,  over  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  which  of 
right  belongs  to  them.  As  it  is  now,  understand,  the  present  act  of 
August  2,  1886,  having  recognized  oleomargarine  as  a  legitimate 
article  of  commerce,  the  States  are  prevented,  by  the  interstate-com- 
merce law,  from  passing  any  legislation  which  would  interfere  with 
the  original  packages  coming  in. 

All  we  ask  is  that  this  act  shall  be  passed  so  as  to  prevent  fraud, 
and  to  put  the  oleomargarine  dealers  on  a  parity,  in  competition, 
with  the  dairymen  of  this  country.  If  they  will  come  in  on  equal 
terms,  if  they  will  pay  to  the  Government  this  revenue  tax  of  10 
cents  a  pound,  then  the  dairymen  of  the  country  have  got  a  fair  chance 
with  them. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  am  ready  to  answer  questions.  I  will  stop  talk- 
ing now. 

Mr.  HABECKER.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  whether  there  is  any  moral 
law  in  this  matter,  aside  from  any  legal  law. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Moral  law?  Yes;  there  is  a  moral  law — that 
" Thou  shalt  not  rob  thy  neighbor."  If  a  man  sells  oleomargarine  for 
butter,  he  is  robbing  his  neighbor.  That  is  immoral. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Right  on  that  line,  then,  let  me  ask  you  the  question 
which  I  raised  originally,  and  which  some  of  your  people  did  not  an- 
swer. (Mr.  Sharpless,  however,  wants  to  place  himself  on  record  on 
that  subject  presently.)  Is  your  attitude  one  of  extermination — 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SCHELL  (continuing).  Of  colored  oleomargarine,  or  is  it 
merely  to  prevent  its  being  sold  as  butter  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  thought  I  had  made  myself  clear  about  that. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No*  you  did  not  touch  on  that  point. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  249 

(Mr.  Tillinghast  rose.) 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Now,  let  me  answer  one  at  a  time,  for  I  can  not 
answer  more  than  one  at  a  time.  I  will  answer  every  question  1  am 
asked,  gentlemen.  Oleomargarine  does  not  cost  the  manufacturer  to 
exceed  8  cents  a  pound  to  produce. 

Mr.  MILLEK.  How  do  you  know  that,  Mr.  Kauffman  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oh,  it  has  come  to  me  over  and  over  again,  from 
various  sources. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  mean  stamped  and  all,  or  without  the 
stamp? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes  ;  stamped  and  all. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  No;  you  are  wrong. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Well,  tell  us  how  much  it  does  cost  then,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  BRENNAN.  That  is  the  point. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  How  much  does  it  cost? 

Mr.  BRENNAN.  I  will  answer  that  question  for  you,  Mr.  Kauff  man. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oh,  do  not  answer  that,  Mr.  Brennan;  let  them 
answer. 

Mr.  BRENNAN.  A  year  ago  the  average  make  was  sold  in  Philadel- 
phia to  the  wholesale  dealers  at  11  cents.  Fancy  goods  sold  for  a  little 
more,  of  course. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  will  say  to  you,  Mr.  Kauffman,  that  we  are  making 
some  goods  that  cost  14  cents. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes;  but  the  great  proportion  of  your  goods  cost 
what? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  I  do  not  care  to  say. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Those  are  the  goods  that  have  butter  in  them  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  can  not  give  away  the  secrets  of  our  trade. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oh,  of  course  not.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  said  it 
cost  them  8  cents  a  pound,  and  they  denied  it;  and  when  I  asked  them 
what  it  did  cost,  they  would  not  answer.  Mr.  Drennan  has  said  (and 
this  I  know  to  be  so)  that  the  goods  are  sold  to  the  wholesalers  in  Phil- 
adelphia at  prices  ranging  from  11  to  12  and  14  cents  a  pound,  accord- 
ing to  quality.  There  are  grades  of  oleomargarine,  you  understand. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Mr.  Kauffman,  the  better  grades  of  oleomargarine  that 
sell  for  14  cents  a  pound,  or  higher,  contain  butter,  do  they  not? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  understand  so. 

Mr.  GROUT.  So  much  butter  that  you  can  hardly  tell  them  from  pure 
butter. 

Mr.  JELKE.  This  grade  of  oleomargarine,  which  contains  such  a 
large  percentage  of  butter,  contains  colored  butter.  It  is  colored  but- 
ter which  is  put  into  the  oleomargarine,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  That  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Well,  will  this  law  permit  us  to  make  the  best  grades 
of  oleomargarine,  and  use  colored  butter? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Unquestionably,  if  you  pay  the  10  cents  a  pound. 
That  is  what  I  say. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  you  would  not  permit  the  sale  of  colored 
oleomargarine  in  Pennsylvania? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oh,  we  are  not  talking  about  the  Pennsylvania 
law,  but  about  the  United  States  law. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  I  say  that  the  law  of  the  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania to-day  does  not  permit  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine.  Does 
it? 


25G  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  And  that  is  so  with  32  States,  as  I  understand. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes,  sir.  I  do  not  know- 
Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  So  that  no  matter  if  we  pay  10  cents  a  pound 
tax,  we  have  no  more  right  to  sell  colored  oleomargarine  in  Pennsyl- 
vania than  we  had  before. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No ;  but  we  are  not  talking  about  the  Pennsylvania 
law,  but  the  United  States  law. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  not  believe  that  if  this  Grout  bill  were  to 
become  a  law,  and  colored  oleomargarine  should  be  taxed  10  cents  a 
pound,  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  repealing*  our  present  law  in 
regard  to  oleomargarine  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  can  only  speak  as  an  individual.  I  think  if  this 
Grout  bill  is  passed,  the  legislation  of  the  States  will  conform  to  the 
United  States  law.  That  is  only  a  matter  of  personal  opinion,  however. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  do  not  know  that  I  understood  you  in  reference 
•to  the  original-package  question.  Do  1  understand  you  to  say  that  if 
the  Wadsworth  bill  were  adopted,  and  if  there  were  no  sales  of  oleo- 
margarine except  in  the  original  package,  the  police  laws  of  the  State 
would  not  apply  to  that  original  package  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Not  a  bit. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  I  so  understand  you? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  That  would  be  exactly  contrary  to  the  case  of 
Plumley  vs.  The  State  of  Massachusetts? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Does  not  the  police  regulation  already  extend  to 
oleomargarine  shipped  in  from  another  State  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes;  when  colored. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Now,  would  not  that  same  decision,  if  it  is  law 
to-day,  be  law  after  the  Wadsworth  bill  were  passed? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  My  impression  is  that  if  this  Wadsworth  bill  were 
passed,  Congress  having  acted  upon  it,  the  decision  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  would  be  changed  to  conform  to  that  legisla- 
tion. Congress  would  then  have  passed  upon  the  matter,  and  that 
would  have  been  the  law. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  think  your  opinion  is  contrary  to  the  opinion 
of  lawyers  generally. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Now,  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  was  almost 
equally  divided  on  this  question;  it  was  three  against  four.  There 
was  only  a  difference  of  one.  It  was  a  very  narrow  question ;  and  if 
the  Wadsworth  bill  were  passed,  I  would  not  be  a  bit  surprised  if 
that  decision  should  be  changed. 

Ask  your  questions,  gentlemen;  I  shall  be  glad  to  answer  them. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Before  you  conclude  I  want  to  correct  one  misap- 
prehension under  which  1  think  you  are  laboring.  That  is,  you  claim 
that  the  friends  of  this  bill  comprise  all  of  the  farmers  of  the  country. 
I  want  to  enter  the  appearance  of  the  farmers  who  are  engaged  in  the 
raising  of  cotton,  hogs,  and  cows  in  the  South  as  opposed  to  this  bill, 
who  outnumber  the  farmers  engaged  in  raising  butter  three  to  one. 
(Laughter.) 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oh,  I  must  differ  with  you  as  to  that.  Why,  just 
of  it!  Just  think  of  it!  Here  are  11,000,000  cows  that  are  interested 
in  dairying.  We  have  100,000  men  in  that  line  of  business  in  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  251 

State  of  Pennsylvania.  I  think  I  can  safely  say  that  there  are  at  least 
from  1,000,000  to  2,000,000  of  independent  farmers  in  the  United 
States  interested  in  the  passage  of  this  Grout  bill.  I  do  not  think 
there  are  that  many  engaged  in  the  business — in  the  cotton  business — in 
the  South. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  The  cotton  business  of  the  South  produces  an  enor- 
mous yield,  amounting  to  several  hundred  millions  of  dollars  a  year. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  And  the  people  engaged  in  raising  live  stock — hogs 
and  cattle — I  can  not  tell  how  many  they  are,  but  they  represent  a  cap- 
ital in  that  business  of  over  $600,000,000.  They  are  all  on  record  in 
opposition  to  this  legislation;  and  you  will  find  it  is  a  great  mistake 
and  misleading  the  public  to  say  that  the  farmers  are  all  supporting 
this  measure. 

Mr.  MASSEY.  Is  it  not  true  that  in  the  West  the  raisers  of  hogs  are 
largely  dairymen  ?  The  daymen  all  raise  hogs,  do  they  not  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Oh,  yes;  they  raise  some  of  the  hogs  that  go  to  the 
local  market.  But  the  National  Livestock  Association  represents  all 
those  associations  for  the  meat  market.  They  are  all  arrayed  against 
this  proposition. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Springer,  may  I  ask  you  a  question  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Have  the  live  stock  association  ever  had  the  dairy- 
men's side  of  the  question  before  them?  Has  this  bill  ever  been 
explained  from  the  dairymen's  standpoint  to  the  live  stock  asso- 
ciation ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  They  are  all  reading  men,  and  they  all  understand 
this  legislation,  and  they  have  been  following  it  for  years;  and  now 
they  have  become  aware  of  the  fact  that  this  legislation  is  inimical  to 
their  institutions,  to  their  business.  They  want  to  enter  their  appear- 
ance before  this  committee;  and  throughout  the  country,  from  this 
time  forward,  they  propose  to  give  you  gentlemen  "a  Roland  for  your 
Oliver."  They  are  going  to  contest  this  legislation  in  Congress  and 
in  the  States,  because  it  does  depreciate  the  value  of  the  live  stock  of 
the  country,  in  which  they  are  interested.  And  it  is  so  with  the  cotton 
men  of  the  South.  You  will  find  them  as  a  unit  upon  this  subject. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  permit  me  to  say  this  :  My 
friend  Mr.  Springer  has  called  attention  to  the  great  amount  of  money 
invested  in  the  cattle  interest.  That  is  not  the  question.  The  ques- 
tion is  one  of  righteousness,  of  judgment,  of  equity.  Is  it  right  for 
the  United  States  Government  to  sanction  a  fraud  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  That  point  you  make  now.  You  made  the  other 
before — that  the  people  who  are  interested  in  this  matter  were  numer- 
ous, and  they  were  farmers,  and  good  people  ;  and  upon  that  argu- 
ment I  want  to  put  these  other  men  on  the  other  side.  You  have  no 
right  to  claim  that  the  farmers  of  this  country  are  supporting  this 
legislation. 

Mr.  EDSON.  Mr.  Springer,  is  it  not  a  matter  of  record  that  the  vol- 
ume of  business  done  in  butter  in  the  United  States  every  year  is 
heavier  than  that  done  in  wheat  ?  I  have  heard  that  it  was. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes;  and  it  is  getting  heavier  every  year,  too,  and 
prices  are  getting  better  every  year.  In  the  face  of  all  this  clamor 
about  injury  to  your  institutions,  you  are  getting  better  prices  for 
your  butter  now  than  you  ever  did,  and  making  more  out  of  it. 


252  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  I  want  to  answer  Judge  Springer's  question.  We 
misapprehended  each  other  a  little,  I  think.  My  friend  Springer  says 
that  we  are  getting  better  prices  for  butter  every  year.  Now,  I  will 
say  that  we  are  getting  better  prices  in  the  Philadelphia  produce  mar- 
ket to-day  than  we  did  two  years  ago.  But  prior  to  those  two  years, 
for  three  years  before,  the  trend  of  the  butter  market  was  downward, 
because  of  competition  from  the  illegal  sales  of  oleo.  The  reason  we 
are  getting  better  prices  to-day  is  because  of  the  work  of  this  associa- 
tion in  enforcing  the  law. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  We  want  to  help  you  enforce  the  law. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Kaufman,  I  would  like  to  say  just  one  thing.  I 
can  say  this:  I  will  give  my  oath  to-day  that  the  cheapest  grade  of 
butterine  we  manufacture  costs  a  great  deal  over  8  cents. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  It  will  not  cost  you  10  cents. 

Mr.  MILLER.  1  am  not  saying  what  it  costs.  I  say  it  costs  a  good 
deal  over  8  cents.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  EDSON.  Mr.  Kauffman,  there  is  one  thing  I  would  like  to  cor- 
rect before  you  sit  down. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  EDSON.  You  stated  that  the  price  of  butter  was  so  much  better 
than  it  was  two  years  ago.  Now,  I  will  tell  you,  from  a  business 
man's  standpoint,  and  from  the  standpoint  of  one  who  does  a  pretty 
good  business  in  Philadelphia  in  the  butter  line,  that  the  butter  busi- 
ness in  Philadelphia  or  in  Pennsylvania  shows  its  sensitiveness  to  the 
oleomargarine  law,  inasmuch  as  that  the  moment  we  began  to  prose- 
cute the  law  and  punish  the  offenders  the  volume  of  our  business 
increased.  During  the  last  year,  with  these  prosecutions  under  way, 
there  is  not  a  butter  man  in  Philadelphia  whose  volume  of  business 
has  not  very  largely  increased,  so  that  that  will  account  for  a  much 
larger  output  of  butter  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 

Now,  answering  the  Judge's  question  in  regard  to  the  increase  of 
the  butter  business  in  the  United  States  yearly,  1  would  state  for  his 
information  that  we  are  exporting  large  amounts  of  butter  out  of  this 
country  every  year,  and  our  export  trade  is  growing  at  the  expense 
of  a  good  deal  of  our  consumptive  trade  right  here  in  this  country, 
owing  to  the  competition  of  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  have  the  floor,  Mr.  Kauffman 
has  answered  my  question  at  length,  and  I  want  to  see  if  I  received 
the  right  impression.  You  and  your  clients  are  not  opposed  to  a  law 
which  would  so  regulate  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  that  con- 
viction would  practically  be  certain? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No. 

Mr.  SCHELL  (continuing).  If  a  man  sold  oleomargarine  for  butter? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  You  are  willing  that  colored  oleomargarine  should 
be  sold  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Provided 

Mr.  SCHELL.  But  it  must  be  sold  for  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  And  not  for  butter? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Provided — we  insist  that  a  part  of  that  regulation 
shall  be  the  imposition  of  this  10-cent  tax,  because  oleomargarine  can 
be  produced  at  so  much  less  that  it  can  absolutely  undersell  and  drive 
out  of  the  market  the  production  of  butter. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  253 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Then  you  do  not  agree  that  it  shall  be  sold  on  its  mer- 
its, without  a  10-cent  tax  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No,  sir;  not  colored.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  will  not  be  sold  on  its  merits. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  We  want  to  get  these  gentlemen  on  record  either  as 
saying  that  if  such  a  law  can  be  enforced 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Now,  I  say 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  One  at  a  time,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  have  the  floor  now,  and  I  think  the  chairman  will 
bear  me  out  in  saying  that  I  have  observed  the  courtesy  of  debate 
right  along. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  that  is  true.  Mr.  Schell  has  the  floor, 
and  should  not  be  interrupted. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  We  want  you  gentlemen  on  record  either  as  being  in 
favor  of  an  absolute  extermination  of  colored  oleomargarine,  except 
under  heavy  penalties,  or  we  want  you  on  record  as  being  in  favor  of 
having  colored  oleomargarine  sold  on  its  merits  for  what  it  is.  We 
want  you  on  one  side  of  the  fence  or  the  other. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Now,  I  am  going  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  what  we  want. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  We  simply  say  that  no  possible  law  or  regulation 
can  be  made  to  prevent  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  as  butter. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  But  if  it  can? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Let  me  answer.  I  say  it  is  impossible  to  pass  any 
law 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  We  have  been  trying  for  twenty  years  to  do  that, 
Mr.  Schell. 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Let  me  answer  the  question.  He  simply  asked 
whether,  if  a  regulation  could  be  made  to  prevent  the  sale  of  colored 
oleomargarine  except  under  restrictions,  we  would  object  to  it.  I  say 
that  that  "if"  is  an  impossible  thing.  No  law  or  regulation  can  be 
made  to  prevent  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  as  and  for  butter. 
I  do  not  care  what  your  penalties  are.  Therefore,  because  of  the 
impossibility  of  selling  colored  oleomargarine  under  restrictions,  we 
ask  that  if  colored  oleomargarine  shall  be  sold  at  all,  the  manufacturer 
shall  pay  10  cents  a  pound  tax  upon  it,  so  as  to  make  the  expense  of 
the  article  so  much  more. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  You  are  not  willing,  then,  that  it  shall  be  sold  on  its 
merits  alone,  unencumbered  by  this  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  We  say  that  colored  oleomargarine  is  an  imitation 
and  a  fraud,  and  therefore  we 

Mr.  GROUT.  You  are  willing  that  it  should  be  sold,  though,  if  its  sale 
could  be  so  regulated  as  to  prevent  its  being  sold  for  butter? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  If  it  could,  yes;  but  that  is  impossible. 

Mr.  GROUT.  That  is  it  exactly.  As  long  as  there  is  a  temptation  of 
150  per  cent  profit  on  the  cost  of  production,  it  will  be  impossible. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Well,  General  Grout,  we  know 

Mr.  GROUT.  That  is  why  you  want  your  tax? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GROUT.  You  want  to  take  away  the  temptation  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  That  is  it,  exactly. 

Mr.  GROUT.  If  you  do  not,  you  can  not  do  it. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  There  is  just  one  other  question  I  want  to  ask  here, 
and  that  is  this:  Would  you  and  your  clients  be  willing  that  this  pres- 


254  OLEOMARGARINE. 

ent  law  should  be  amended,  if  it  could,  so  that  the  man  who  wants  col 
ored  oleomargarine  can  order  it  made  and  have  it  made  to  his  order, 
and  supplied  to  him  by  the  manufacturer  without  this  man,  the  con- 
sumer, having  to  pay  this  additional  tax? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  It  can  not  be  done. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  But  if  it  could  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  But  you  are  supposing  that  which  is  absolutely 
impossible. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No,  no.  We  want  to  get  7 ou  where  you  are,  but 
when  we  think  we  have  you,  you  are  not  there.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  No;  I  will  explain.  Since  1886  you  have  had  a 
law  upon  the  statute  books — your  present  law — which  provides  as  a 
penalty  for  its  violation  a  fine  not  exceeding  $1,000  and  an  imprison- 
ment not  exceeding  two  years.  You  have  that  law,  which  was  enacted 
expressly  to  prevent  the  sale  of  oleomargarine,  colored  or  uncolored, 
as  butter;  and  yet  it  is  ineffective. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  have  been  operating  under  those  conditions  for 
years. 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  You  are  stating  an  impossibility,  sir.  It  is  hardly 
fair. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  One  at  a  time,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  A  question  I  would  like  to  ask,  but  which  I  think 
you  have  substantially  answered,  is  this  :  I  understood  you  to  say  in 
your  remarks  that  with  reference  to  the  State  of  New  York 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  The  State  of  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  (Continuing:)  And  with  reference  to  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania  also,  that  they  have  substantially  produced  a  compli- 
ance with  their  anticolor  law,  and  that  in  consequence  of  that  there 
has  been  an  increase  in  the  price  of  butter  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  In  the  city  of  Philadelphia — not  in  the  whole  State 
of  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  EDSON.  I  corrected  that  statement. 

Mr.  DRENNAN.  Yes ;  and  it  is  not  fair  to  state  that  if  we  had  enforced 
a  compliance  with  the  law,  such  and  such  a  result  would  follow.  We 
are  not  the  parties  to  do  it  at  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  finished,  Mr.  Kauffman  ? 

Mr.  KAUFFMAN.  Oh,  I  have  finished;  but  I  am  always  perfectly 
willing  to  answer  questions. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  I  declare  the  committee  to  stand 
adjourned  until  10.30  o'clock  on  Monday  morning. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  O.,  Monday,  January  7, 1901. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Hansbrough  (acting  chairman),  Foster,  Bate, 
Money,  Dolliver,  and  Heitfeld. 

Also,  Hon.  W.  D.  Hoard,  ex-governor  of  Wisconsin  and  president  of 
the  National  Dairy  Union ;  0.  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National 
Dairy  Union;  HOD.  William  M.  Springer,  of  Springfield,  111.,  repre- 
senting the  National  Live  Stock  Association;  Charles  E.  Schell,  repre- 
senting the  Ohio  Butterine  Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  W.  E.  Miller, 
representing  the  Armour  Packing  Company,  Kansas  City,  Mo. ;  John  F. 
Jelke,  representing  Messrs.  Braun  aiid  Fitts,  Chicago,  111.,  and  others. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  255 

ARGUMENT  OF  ATTORNEY  CHARLES  E.  SCHELL,  REPRESENTING 
THE  OHIO  BUTTERINE  COMPANY,  OF  CINCINNATI,  OHIO;  THE 
BOLD  BUTTERINE  COMPANY,  OF  KANSAS  CITY,  MO.;  THE  UNION 
DAIRY  COMPANY,  OF  CLEVELAND,  OHIO,  AND  OTHERS. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  sent  here  by  the  Ohio  Butterina 
Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  institution  being  operated  now? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  institution  is  being  operated  now. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Has  it  ever  been  closed  f 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  has  never  been  closed.  It  only  came  into  existence 
a  short  time  since.  The  charter  was  issued,  I  think,  the  same  day  that 
the  Grout  bill  passed  the  House. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  very  new,  then? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  An  infant  industry. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  an  infant  industry. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  am  also  attorney  for  the  Jacob  Dold  Packing  Com- 
pany, of  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  and  I  want  to  state  that  although  originally 
manufacturing  oleomargarine  under  the  name  of  the  Jacob  Dold  Pack- 
ing Company,  yet  in  order  to  more  closely  associate  what  has  been 
called  the  "legislative  name"  of  the  product  with  the  product,  they 
have  incorporated  their  oleomargarine  department  under  the  name  of 
"The  Dold  Butterine  Company,"  and  were,  as  I  am  told,  the  first  com- 
pany to  adopt  a  name  identical  with  the  product.  I  am  duly  author- 
ized to  speak  for  them. 

I  am  also  attorney  for  the  Union  Dairy  Company,  of  Cleveland,  Ohio, 
and  have  been  for  years;  but  Mr.  Seither,  the  president  and  general 
manager  of  that  company,  will  be  here  to  speak  for  it,  and  I  will  only 
quote  him  as  favoring  any  law  which  will  distinctly  and  without  dis- 
crimination place  butter  and  butterine  distinctly  on  their  separate  and 
individual  merits,  but  as  being  against  the  Grout  bill  as  being  class  leg- 
islation of  the  most  vicious  kind. 

I  am  also  attorney  for  wholesale  and  retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine; 
for  commission  men,  whose  main  business  is  butter  and  eggs;  for  dairy- 
men; for  farmers;  for  consumers,  who  have  within  two  weeks  person- 
ally expressed  to  me  their  condemnation  of  this  bill. 

In  the  years  I  have  been  fighting  the  State  color  laws,  1  have 
discussed  the  question  of  color  discrimination  in  dairy  laws  on  all  pos- 
sible occasions,  opportune  and  otherwise;  and  I  have  hundreds  of 
expressions  from  all  classes  and  conditions  of  mankind  uniformly  con- 
demning the  discrimination  between  the  two  products— allowing  the 
farmers  to  color  their  butter  and  not  allowing  the  oleomargarine  manu- 
facturers to  color  their  product. 

Reference  has  been  made  from  time  to  time  to  people  appearing  here 
as  "paid  attorneys;"  and  intimations  have  been  made  that  the  same 
degree  of  consideration  should  not  be  given  to  what  they  have  to  say 
as  to  what  might  be  said  by  somebody  directly  interested. 

I  must  resent  that.  So  will  any  fair  minded  attorney.  So  will  every 
man  who  has  had  dealings  with  the  legal  profession.  Attorneys  do  not, 
as  is  sometimes  supposed,  accept  employment  for  the  purpose  of  win- 
ning by  fair  means  or  foul;  but  merely  to  see  that  their  clients  receive 
every  benefit  to  which  the  law  and  the  facts  entitle  them. 

Now,  since  this  hearing  is  what  it  is  called,  "  a  hearing,"  and  not  a 
trial,  as  I  argue  for  my  clients,  I  want  to  go  beyond  the  bounds  with 
which  custom  has  hedged  an  attorney,  and  within  which  I  generally 
try  to  confine  myself,  and  mingle  some  testimony  with  my  talk  and 


256  OLEOMARGARINE. 

appear  as  a  witness  on  behalf  of  all  these  people  who  have  expressed 
themselves  against  this  species  of  legislation  and  as  a  witness  on  behalf 
of  every  loyal,  liberty-loving  citizen  of  this  great  United  States.  What- 
ever may  be  the  situation  of  paid  attorneys  in  some  cases,  in  this  my 
duties  to  my  client  and  my  country  are  the  same. 

Gentlemen,  I  believe  that  the  mind  of  every  member  of  this  commit- 
tee is  made  up,  to  an  extent,  on  this  subject,  but  I  believe  that  every 
one  is  oyen  to  conviction  on  either  side.  That  is  evidenced  by  the 
patience  and  consideration  with  which  every  one  has  been  received. 
This  has  been  a  very  liberal  hearing.  From  my  point  of  view  I  would 
have  preferred  that  it  be  more  in  the  nature  of  a  trial;  that  the  friends 
of  the  bill  should  have  presented  their  case;  that  they  should  have 
presented  their  witnesses,  not  statements,  not  allegations,  not  bunches 
of  testimony  which  appeared  before  the  House,  and  which,  of  course,  is 
admissible  as  evidence  in  this  case;  not  that  they  should  come  in  and 
read  at  random  statements  from  books  or  pamphlets  issued  from  some 
source,  we  know  not  what,  but  that  their  evidence  should  have  been 
submitted  to  a  rigid,  searching  cross-examination,  and  that  then  we 
should  have  come  in  with  our  side  of  it  and  been  subjected  to  the  same 
cross-examination.  Then  they  could  have  closed  their  case.  As  it  is, 
we  have  appeared  at  a  disadvantage.  We  are  under  arraignment.  The 
specific  counts  of  the  indictment  are  not  named.  We  do  not  really 
know  as  yet  what  it  is  we  have  to  face  excepr  that  it  is  a  threatened 
destruction  of  our  industries. 

The  burden  of  proof,  you  will  remember,  is  on  the  friends  of  the  bill 
in  this  case.  As  yet  they  have  failed.  As  yet  they  have  not  tried  to 
make  a  case.  As  yet  they  have  not  stated  their  case.  And  before  I  go 
any  further,  let  me  say  this :  I  see  Mr.  Knight  is  present.  I  would  like 
to  have  on  record  Mr.  Knight,  who  seems  to  be  the  main  spoke  in  the 
wheel;  Mr.  Hoard,  who  is  his  first  assistant;  General  Grout,  who  seems 
to  be  second  assistant  in  the  case ;  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Flanders,  and  others 
who  have  appeared  here.  I  would  like  to  have  these  gentlemen  on 
record,  so  that  we  may  know  just  exactly  where  they  stand.  And  I  am 
going  to  ask  Mr.  Knight  this  morning — and  I  think  I  am  entitled  to 
ask  the  question — that  he  place  himself  on  record;  that  he  tell  us 
whether  the  object  of  this  agitation,  the  object  of  this  bill,  is  to  abso- 
lutely prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine,  or 
whether  he  is  willing  that  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  this  product 
shall  be  so  hedged  about  with  law,  with  regulations,  with  provisions, 
that  it  will  be  compelled  to  be  sold  on  its  merits,  and  not  to  encroach 
(if  it  ever  has  encroached)  upon  the  particular  province  of  dairy  or 
creamery  butter.  Will  you  kindly  advise  me,  Mr.  Knight? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  say  to  Mr.  Schell  that  if  he  will  present  a  measure 
which  the  people  who  have  had  experience  in  enforcing  the  dairy  laws 
believe  will  hedge  it  about  with  such  safeguards  as  that  colored  oleo- 
margarine can  be  put  to  the  consumer  without  deceit  and  fraud,  I  am 
sure  we  will  all  accept  it.  That  is  my  answer.  And  I  want  to  say 
further  that  if  it  had  been  possible  in  the  twenty  years  we  have  been 
endeavoring  to  have  framed  such  laws,  we  never  would  have  been 
before  Congress  to-day  asking  for  a  10-cent  tax  on  colored  oleomar- 
garine. [Laughter.]  I  will  prove  my  case,  gentlemen.  You  need  not 
smile  so  audibly. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  the  point,  gentlemen.  I  am  glad  to  hear  Mr. 
Knight  speak  as  he  does.  His  statement  is  the  most  nearly  direct 
explanation  of  their  desires  that  we  have  as  yet  had.  But  does  he 
mean  it?  We  will  see.  I  wish  he  had  made  his  case  in  the  beginning 


OLEOMARGARINE.  257 

and  given  us  a  chance  at  it.  And  I  will  ask,  gentlemen,  that  if  in  the 
course  of  the  presentation  of  their  case  (which  seems  to  be  corning  later) 
the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  this  question  should  adduce  any  new 
arguments,  any  new  theories,  any  new  facts  or  alleged  facts  wi,  ch  they 
have  not  yet  placed  before  your  committee,  our  side  may  be  given  the 
right — and  we  claim  it  as  a  right,  not  a  privilege — to  reply  to  anything 
we  deem  worthy  of  notice. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  committee  has  been  very  liberal 
in  that  respect  thus  far.  We  have  allowed  the  interruptions  and  cross- 
questioning  all  along  the  line  by  both  sides. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes;  we  concede  that  the  committee  has  been  very  lib- 
eral, and  we  have  no  fault  to  find  with  the  committee. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  This  has  been  purely  a  Congressional 
hearing.  It  is  exactly  what  it  is  represented  to  be.  It  is  not  colored 
at  all. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is  sailing  under  the  proper  colors.  I  conceded  that 
in  the  start. 

Now,  the  attitude  of  the  friends  of  this  bill,  gentlemen,  can  perhaps 
be  denned  as  a  good  old  Methodist  minister  (I  forget  his  name  now — 
yon  will  probably  all  recall  the  story)  defined  Presbyterianism.  Now, 
with  Presbyterianism  or  Methodism  I  have  no  fault  to  find,  and  I  do 
not  relate  this  story  with  the  idea  of  any  reflection  on  either  denomina- 
tion. But,  in  speaking  of  the  Presbyterian  doctrine,  you  will  recall 
that  he  defined  it  as  "I  can  and  I  can't;  I  will  and  I  won't;  I'll  be 
damned  if  I  do,  and  damned  if  I  don't."  (Laughter.] 

Now,  I  am  going  to  do  what  has  not  been  done  by  our  side  as  yet. 
I  am  going  to  dignify  with  a  rtply  some  of  the  things  which  have  been 
said  by  the  other  side,  and  which  have  been  presented  to  your  commit- 
tee in  a  bunch,  perhaps  with  the  idea  of  their  receiving  attention  and 
perhaps  to  confuse  the  record. 

My  colleagues  have,  each  in  his  own  way,  stated  their  views.  Not 
one  has  claimed  to  be  the  favored  of  the  Lord,  entitled  to  protection. 
Not  one  has  asked  a  favor.  They  have  only  asked  their  rights,  equal 
rights  with  all  men,  as  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution. 

I  shall  give  some  attention  to  the  other  side  and,  since  we  shall 
follow  largely  what  has  heretofore  been  said,  I  can  not  be  as  logical  as 
I  would  like.  But  I  will  aim  to  treat  the  subject  under  three  general 
heads.  These  heads  are: 

First.  The  bill. 

Second.  The  friends  and  foes  of  the  bill. 

Third.  The  alleged  rival  products.  (We  do  not  concede  that  they  are 
rival  products,  but  they  are  claimed  to  be.) 

A  great  and  good  man  once  said:  " By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
them."  And  it  would  appear  from  that  and  other  reasons  that  an 
examination  of  the  bill  would  be  sufficient;  but  sometimes  it  is  well  to 
examine  the  tree,  especially  when  the  fruit  is  such  a  l)ead  Sea  apple  as 
the  Grout  bill.  But  the  Good  Book  also  says :  "  The  last  shall  be  first." 
So  we  will  take  up  first  the  alleged  rival  products,  or  the  subject  matter 
of  the  bill. 

Butter  and  butterine  are  almost  identical  in  every  respect.  As  to 
their  ingredients,  they  are  identical,  except  that  butter  contains  just  a 
little  more  butyric  acid.  You  gentlemen  will  recall,  from  your  studies 
of  chemistry  and  physiology,  that  there  are  only  four  kinds  of  fat — 
olein,  stearin,  palmitin,  and  butyrin.  In  butter  there  is  just  a  little 
more  butyrin ;  and  the  presence  of  this  butyrin  is  the  only  means  by 

S.  Rep.  20±3 17 


258  OLEOMARGARINE. 

which  the  chemist  can  distinguish  definitely  between  butter  and  but- 
terine. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  ask  him  a  question? 
What  becomes  of  the  other  fatty  acids  that  are  in  butter,  and  that  are 
not  in  butterine — capriu,  and  the  other  acids? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Why,  Governor  Hoard,  I  want  to  say  in  reply  to  that 
that  when  I  have  finished — my  time  is  not  limited.  1  am  glad  to  say, 
but  at  the  end,  if  the  Committee  wants  that  I  should  say  something 
more — I  will  be  glad  to  answer  any  questions  that  may  be  asked.  But 
since  you  are  here — 

Senator  UOLLIVER.  If  there  are  any  other  differences,  perhaps  you 
had  better  go  into  that  matter  now.  You  have  spoken  of  one  element 
of  difference.  I  would  like  to  know  if  there  are  other  differences  besides 
this  butyric  acid  of  which  you  speak. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  absolutely  the  only  difference,  as  I  am  advised 
by  chemists  whom  I  have  had  examine  this  product,  and  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  chemists  who  appeared  before  the  House  Committee.  In 
the  revised  regulations  sent  out  by  the  revenue  department  it  is  stated 
that  it  was  conclusively  shown  to  some  investigating  committee,  whose 
authority  seemed  to  have  the  sanction  of  that  department,  that  it  was 
the  only  difference.  I  have  cross  examined  State  chemists  time  and 
again,  and  have  always  dwelt  upon  that  one  subject;  and  I  have  been 
advised  by  them,  by  their  sworn  statements,  the  statements  of  wit- 
nesses for  the  other  side,  that  it  was  by  an  estimate  of  the  amount  of 
butyric  acid  contained  in  the  samples  that  they  were  able  to  distinguish 
between  butter  and  butterine,  and  to  tell  what  per  cent  of  butter  fats 
appeared. 

Senator  DOLLLVER.  Is  there  any  butyric  acid  in  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes;  there  is  some,  but  it  is  not  present  in  as  large 
a  quantity  as  in  butter. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Well,  would  it  be  possible  to  add  enough  of  that 
product  to  make  the  articles  absolutely  identical? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  would;  and  I  have  also  asked  the  State  chemists 
that  question. 

Mr.  HOARD.  What  chemists,  please?  What  chemists  do  you  refer 
to? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Governor,  I  want  to  state  to  you  now  that  if  you  will 
kindly  wait  I  have  promised  the  chairman  to  aid  him  in  getting  through 
as  soon  as  possible;  and  I  recall  so  well  your  questions  to  my  prede- 
cessors on  this  side  that  I  see  the  time  would  be  fully  taken  by  you  if 
I  should  answer  all  your  questions. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  beg  your  pardon,  sir,  for  asking  the  questions,  if  it 
interferes  with  your  remarks. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Governor,  you  will  be  given  an  opportunity 
to  question  him  at  the  close  of  his  remarks. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  One  of  the  chemists  I  have  in  mind  now  (to  go  right 
on,  and  perhaps  answer  the  question  at  the  same  time)  was  Professor 
Louis  Schmidt,  chief  chemist  of  the  pure  food  department  of  the 
State  of  Ohio.  I  asked  him  this  question  directly:  "Professor,  would 
it  not  be  possible,  by  the  use  of  free  butyrin  by  the  manufacturers  of 
oleomargarine,  to  make  an  article  which  chemically  could  not  be  dis- 
tinguished from  butter?"  And  he  replied  in  the  affirmative.  Now, 
while  I  have  not  questioned  all  the  manufacturers,  yet  I  have  been 
advised  by  those  engaged  in  the  business  that  it  would  be  possible  to 
do  this,  but  they  say,  "We  do  not  want  it.  A  very  little  of  the  free 


OLEOMARGARINE.  259 

butyrin  would  be  sufficient  to  flavor,  to  give  that  particular  property 
to  the  entire  daily  output  of  the  factory,  and  it  would  render  the 
product  less  desirable,  because  it  would  then  become  rancid,  the  same 
as  butter  does." 

Now,  as  far  as  the  various  chemists  are  concerned,  I  shall  not  go 
into  the  chemistry  of  this  subject.  The  testimony  before  the  House 
committee  covers  that  subject;  and  as  far  as  I  am  advised — and, 
remember,  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  other  side — they  have  not 
introduced  any  evidence,  they  have  not  shown  by  a  single  chemist, 
that  there  is  anything  in  butterine  not  contained  in  butter,  nor  in  but- 
ter which  is  not  contained  in  butterine,  except  this  butyric  acid.  And 
this  acid,  this  butyrin,  adds  nothing  to  and  takes  nothing  from  the 
value  of  the  product. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  to  do  with  the  taste,  as  I  under- 
stand I 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  has  to  do  with  the  taste  and  the  keeping  qualities 
of  the  article.  Our  friend,  Mr.  Flanders,  from  New  York,  kindly 
refers  to  the  chemists  who  have  testified  as  "third-rate  chemists." 
Mr.  Hamilton,  of  Pennsylvania,  pronounces  them  eminent  chemists. 
Mr;  Knight,  in  his  statement  before  the  House  committee,  I  think, 
waived  the  subject  of  an  investigation  by  chemists,  saying  that  it 
would  simply  result  in  conflicting  opinions  of  paid  experts,  and  with 
that  remark  dismissed  that  phase  of  it. 

These  two  articles  are  also  similar  in  purpose.  They  are  used  for 
identically  the  same  thing.  They  are  also  similar  in  natural  appear- 
ance and  in  artificial  appearance.  They  both  need  the  same  artificial 
coloring. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Now,  I  would  like  to  have  you  go  into  that 
question  a  little.  What  is  the  natural  color  of  oleomargarine ? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  leaf  lard,  which  is  one  of  the  ingredients  of  oleo- 
margarine, is,  as  I  understand,  pure  white. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Does  that  dominate  the  color  of  the  product? 

Mr.  SCHELL  (continuing).  And  the  other  ingredients  are  not  exactly 
white.  So  that  the  natural  color  of  oleomargarine  is  a  very  slight 
tinge  toward  yellow,  or  perhaps  gray,  from  the.pure  white,  which  color 
we  would  be  compelled  to  give  to  the  article  if  this  law  were  to  go  into 
effect. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Has  it  not  a  sort  of  muddy  color! 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No;  not  exactly  a  muddy  color,  I  think. 

Senator  FOSTER.  It  has  been  described  as  a  dirty  gray. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  you  understand  that  to  be  the  natural  color 
of  butter? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Why,  if  the  committee  please,  I  have  in  almost  every 
year  of  niy  life  spent  a  part  of  each  year  in  the  country,  in  the  moun- 
tains, in  the  farming  districts  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  and  in  the 
mountains  of  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  and  Maryland;  and  I  have  seen 
more  white  or  dirty  gray  butter  on  the  tables  of  the  farmers  than  1  ever 
saw  any  other  kind.  From  my  own  experience  and  from  what  I  have 
heard  and  read,  it  is  the  greater  part  of  the  year  more  nearly  the  dirty 
gray  than  it  is  the  rich  golden  color  we  see  in  the  butter  which  we  get 
at  first  class  hotels. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  think  you  are  mistaken,  though,  as  to  the 
dirty  gray  being  the  natural  color.  I  have  been  in  the  butter  busi- 
ness myself;  that  is,  I  have  had  it  made  on  my  farm.  I  think  if  the 
milkers  have  their  hands  cleaned,  and  do  not  get  the  bucket  kicked 


260  OLEOMARGARINE. 

over,  and  handle  it  carefully,  tbe  tint  is  a  purer  tint.  It  is  not  a  dirty 
gray. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  If! 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Of  course  the  "if  "is  there. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  am  going  to  come  to  that  later  on. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  have  done  a  great  deal  of  churning  in  my  time, 
and  seen  a  good  deal  of  it  done,  and  been  in  the  business  of  making 
butter.  I  supposed  that  it  approached  a  yellow  color,  from  long  and 
careful  observation. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  have  no  doubt,  gentlemen,  that  the  butter  which 
either  one  of  you  gentlemen  would  make  would  be  a  yellow  butter. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  poets  have  always  described  butter  as 
yellow. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes,  the  highest  class  of  butter,  perhaps,  and  even  then 
were  exercising  a  poetic  license. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  am  afraid  the  rural  districts  you  got  into  were 
not  of  the  best. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  All  kinds,  gentlemen;  but,  I  will  treat  that  subject  later 
on,  in  speaking  of  the  different  kinds  of  butter. 

Senator  HEITFELD.    1  think  we  are  satisfied  as  regards  that  part  of  it. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  am  afraid  you  are  satisfied  the  wrong  way.  [Laughter.] 
I  want  to  convince. 

As  to  the  nutritive  qualities  of  butterine,  I  think  there  can  be  no 
question.  The  chemists  agree  on  that  subject.  The  other  side  very 
faintly  claim  that  the  nutritive  qualities  are  not  the  same  as  those  of 
butter;  but  they  have  not  made  their  case  or  even  introduced  any 
testimony.  Until  they  do,  we  do  not  have  to  go  into  that.  We  do  not 
think  it  necessary.  It  would  be  presuming  on  the  intelligence  of  the 
committee  to  do  it. 

As  to  the  melting  point,  there  are  various  claims  made  by  the  other 
side.  In  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Miller,  in  the  hearing  before  the  House 
committee,  at  page  200,  this  matter  is  gone  into;  and  Professor  Wiley, 
I  think,  makes  the  claim  (at  least  it  is  a  fact)  that  the  mere  melting 
point  does  not  make  any  particular  difference;  because  the  melting 
points  of  apples,  meat,  etc.,  if  they  have  any  melting  point,  are  con- 
siderably higher  than  that  of  butter;  and  their  nutritive  qualities  are 
not  questioned. 

There  has  been  no  serious  question  or  claim  on  the  subject  of  nutrition 
and  the  perfect  healthfullness  of  the  article,  except  by  Mr.  Flanders 
and  Attorney  Kauffman.  Mr.  Hamilton  thought  the  matter  not  de- 
cided; and  Governor  Hoard  and  Mr.  Knight  merely  raised  the  question, 
but  brought  in  no  evidence. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  say  I  did  not  bring  in  any  evidence?  Turn,  if  you 
please,  to  my  statement  before  the  agricultural  committee,  and  you 
will  find  the  evidence  there  stated  specifically. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  will  state  from  recollection  that  Governor  Hoard,  in 
that  statement,  after  touching  on  the  subject,  passed  on  and  spoke  of 
the  condition  of  certain  alms  houses  in  England. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  gave  the  evidence  there- 
Mr.  SCHELL.  But  there  is  nothing  there  that  will  be  considered  as 
evidence  before  any  court,  or  before  a  committee,  in  passing  upon  a 
matter  according  to  the  rights.  We  are  charged  in  this  case  with  being 
guilty  of  something.  It  must  be  proven,  and  it  must  not  be  proven  on 
hearsay,  loose,  random  statements  of  some  partisan  in  a  partisan  paper 
in  regard  to  the  condition  of  alms  houses  over  in  England.  But  be  that 
as  it  may,  no  question  can  honestly 


The 

f\  s    I    r 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  261 


The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Just  a  moment,  Mr.  Schell.  The  charge, 
as  1  understand  it,  is  that  you  sell  oleomargarine  for  butter.  Is  not 
that  the  specific  charge  that  is  made? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  the  specific  charge;  and  yet  the  plaintiffs,  as  I 
term  them,  in  this  case,  have  gone  beyond  the  lines  of  legitimate  inquiry 
in  making  the  case  upon  that  question,  and  we  feel  entitled  to  make 
some  reference  to  the  claims  which  they  have  adduced. 

On  the  question  of  the  alleged  injurious  effects  of  this  product,  oleo- 
margarine is,  as  I  am  advised,  used  in  the  majority  of  the  National 
Soldiers'  Homes  air  over  the  country.  There  have  been  no  complaints 
from  them.  Gentlemen,  the  intelligence  of  the  members  of  the  Grand 
Army  of  the  Eepublic  is  such  that  if  there  were  any  question  about  it, 
it  would  have  been  raised.  These  gentlemen  come  in  here  and  with 
their  other  accusations  accuse  the  nation  of  feeding  its  old  soldiers  on 
something  that  is  absolutely  injurious  to  health,  if  they  seriously  make 
that  claim,  which  1  do  not  think  they  do. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Its  use  is  forbidden  in  the  old  Soldiers'  Home  in  Wis- 
consin. 

Mr.  MILLER.  He  refers  to  National  Soldiers7  Homes,  Governor  Hoard. 

Mr.  HOARD.  And  protests  have  been  raised  there  repeatedly. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  Governor,  I  have  said  that  you  would  have  your 
turn  after  a  while. 

Gentlemen,  these  products  are  both  butter,  and  nothing  else;  many 
of  us  have  had  experience  on  the  farm ;  and  in  the  country  we  have 
heard  the  dairy  product  distinguished  from  the  other  butter  used  on 
the  table  of  the  farmer  by  designating  it  u  cow  butter."  We  have  eaten 
on  those  same  tables  apple  butter,  peach  butter,  quince  butter,  and 
pumpkin  butter;  and  yet  nobody  disputes  that  they  are  butter.  Oleo- 
margarine— butterine — is  butter.  As  a  gentleman  stated  the  other 
day,  it  has  been  given  the  name  of  butterine  legislatively.  The  pro- 
ducers, the  manufacturers  of  the  product,  have  accepted  that  name. 
We  do  not  object.  We  are  willing  to  be  distinguished.  As  Commis- 
sioner Wilson  stated  in  his  report,  if  the  name  could  be  branded  on  the 
article  it  would  be  one  of  the  best  recommendations  to  the  consumer 
the  article  could  have.  The  only  difference  is  the  way  in  which  this 
finished  product  is  produced.  Is  flour  any  the  less  flour  because, 
instead  of  being  turned  into  flour  as  it  used  to  be  by  the  different  proc- 
esses through  which  it  used  to  have  to  go,  it  now  goes  through  different 
and  improved  processes?  Formerly  the  grain  was  cut  with  the  sickle, 
thrashed  out  with  flails  on  the  barn  floor  (or  by  the  stock,  as  the  case 
may  be),  put  in  a  sack,  thrown  over  a  barebacked  mule,  and  carried  to 
the  mill  by  the  farmer's  boy,  barefooted,  and  with  the  hair  sticking 
through  the  top  of  his  straw  hat,  and  then  turned  to  flour  by  the  old 
process.  Is  it  any  the  less  flour  because  now  the  grain  is  reaped  in  the 
most  improved  fashion,  thrashed  in  a  way  that  will  save  all  the  product, 
and  put  through  the  latest  improved  processes,  such  as  are  used  by 
Pillsbury  and  others?  None  the  less.  And  yet  they  are  making  this 
distinction  between  butter  and  butterine.  It  is  an  unfair  distinction; 
and  yet  we  accept  it.  We  take  the  name  "  butterine,"  and  ask 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  But  the  laws  of  the  United  States  have  distin- 
guished between  flour  and  mixed  flour — that  is,  flour  whose  chemical 
properties  are  reenforced  from  the  outside  with  cornstarch,  and  sand, 
and  things  like  that. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  an  adulteration;  and,  gentlemen,  I  want  to  go 
on  record  here,  in  the  interests  of  all  the  people  I  represent,  that  any 
law  passed  by  the  United  States  or  by  any  State  for  the  purpose  of 


202  OLEOMARGARINE. 

preventing  adulteration  will  have  our  hearty  support.  There  is  too 
little  attention  given  to  legislating  against  adulterations;  and  had  half 
the  energy  which  has  been  expended  in  getting  an  unfair  discrimina- 
tion between  these  two  products  been  expended  in  the  interest  of  the 
suppression  of  adulteration  of  every  product  that  goes  on  the  table, 
the  country  would  have  been  benefited  to  a  much  larger  extent. 

Now,  as  to  the  difference  in  these  two  products.  The  material  differ- 
ence is  in  the  manufacture  and  price  only. 

As  to  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  I  will  simply  refer  the 
committee  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Hobbs,  on  page  138,  I  think,  of  his 
testimony  before  the  House  committee,  in  which  be  followed  it  through 
from  the  beginning  to  end,  and  commended  it.  He  said  in  his  testi- 
timony,  at  some  point,  that  since  he  has  fully  investigated  it  he  uses 
the  product  on  his  own  table  in  preference  to  butter.  I  also  refer  you, 
gentlemen,  to  the  testimony  of  Commissioner  Wilson,  at  the  bottom  of 
pages  170,  171,  and  184  of  the  House  hearings.  I  do  not  turn  to  these 
places  and  read  them,  because  I  do  not  want  to  encroach  upon  the 
time  of  the  committee;  but  I  want  the  places  distinctly  noted,  so  that 
the  committee  may  fully  investigate  if  they  wish. 

And  I  want  to  add  a  statement  here  from  the  rigid  regulations  of  the 
Ohio  Butterine  Company.  Everything  there  is  conducted  on  the  same 
scrupulously  clean  plan  referred  to  by  Mr.  Hobbs.  But  another  detail 
might  be  mentioned.  The  entire  force— they  employ  none  but  men  in 
the  factory — have  ,their  bathrooms  and  dressing  rooms,  and  before 
they  go  into  the  factory  proper  they  are  compelled  to  don  white  duck 
suits  and  wooden  shoes  and  pass  before  an  inspector;  and  cleanliness 
is  considered  the  very  first  law  of  the  factory. 

Again,  the  factories  must  be  ready  at  all  times  for  Government 
inspection.  The  local  people,  it  will  perhaps  be  claimed,  could  be  pro- 
vided against.  They  would  know  them,  and  perhaps  would  know  of 
their  coming.  Fellow-citizens  of  the  same  town  are  not  apt  to  take 
undue  advantages,  possiby;  but  the  Government,  the  revenue  officers, 
have  their  secret  agents  who  go  about  from  time  to  time,  and  the  manu- 
facturers know  not  the  day  nor  the  hour  when  they  are  going  to  appear. 
They  must  be  ready  at  all  times.  And  so  far  as  I  am  acquainted  with 
any  factories,  they  are  ready  at  all  times;  and  on  behalf  of  our  Cincin- 
nati factory,  and  on  behalf  of  the  Jacob  Bold  Packing  Company,  and 
on  behalf  of  the  Union  Dairy  Company,  I  extend  to  any  and  every 
member  of  the  committee,  or  anyone,  an  invitation  to  come  at  anytime, 
and  they  will  be  shown  through  the  factory,  and  shown  that  every- 
thing which  has  been  said  in  favor  of  the  cleanliness  and  godliness  of 
the  factories  is  observed. 

Now,  as  to  color,  there  really  is  a  difference.  Both  of  these  products 
are  colored.  They  have  to  be  colored  in  order  to  be  marketable  com- 
modities to-day.  There  is,  however,  a  difference  in  the  coloring  matter 
used.  The  large  creameries  and  prominent  dairymen,  of  course,  use  a 
harmless  color.  The  oleomargarine  factories  are  compelled  to  do  so. 
Not  only  is  it  their  desire,  but  if  they  were  to  use  anything  else  it  would 
subject  them  to  heavy  penalties  under  the  United  States  laws.  I  think 
that  in  a  case  of  using  any  substance  deleterious  to  health  there  is  pro- 
vided a  confiscation  as  well  as  a  fine. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Do  they  color  creamery  butter  at  all  times  of  the 
year? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  will  not  say,  absolutely,  at  all  times;  but  my— 

Senator  FOSTER.  When  they  are  making  the  most  of  the  butter, 
along  in  the  summer  time,  May,  June,  and  July,  do  they  color  it? 


Mr. 

in  tb< 


OLEOMARGARINE.  263 


Mr.  SCHELL.  My  impression  is  that  it  is  all  colored,  at  all  times;  but 
in  the  summer  time  less  coloring  is  required;  and  I  am  advised  that 
the  creameries  use  exactly  the  same  coloring  matter  that  is  used  by  the 
oleomargarine  factories. 

But  there  is  not  the  same  restriction  in  regard  to  the  coloring  matters 
used  by  the  dairy  farmers,  the  small  farmers.  In  Cincinnati  years  ago 
we  have  had  prosecutions  of  farmers  under  our  Ohio  laws  for  using 
poisonous  color  in  their  butter.  The  farmers  have  improved  their 
methods  since;  and  perhaps  in  justice  to  them  it  might  be  well  to  say 
that  there  is  very  little,  if  any,  poisonous  coloring  matter  used  now. 
Yet  the  easiest  coloring  matter  is  the  coal-tar  product. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  beg  pardon,  but  is  that  the  coloring  matter  that  you 
refer  to,  Mr.  Schell — the  coal-tar  product? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  Mr.  Knight,  I  must  remind  you  people  again— 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  not  interrupt  the  speaker. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  In  view  of  past  experience,  the  experience  of  my  pred- 
ecessors, I  find  that  it  will  not  do  to  give  you  any  leeway  at  all. 

Now,  the  paraffin  subject  was  treated  by  Mr.  Hobbs 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Before  you  leave  that  question  of  color, 
Mr.  Schell,  allow  me  to  introduce  a  brief  letter  here  which  has  been 
handed  to  me.  It  is  from  Mr.  O.  Sands,  of  Chicago,  111.,  and  is  ad- 
dressed to  Mr.  Knight.  The  heading  on  the  letter  is  u  Elgin  Creamery 
Company,"  and  it  says: 

Replying  to  yours,  at  hand,  liave  to  say  that  I  have  gone  over  our  books,  aud 
find  that  we  use  about  70  gallons  of  oil  butter  color,  running  through  the  entire 
twelve  months  of  the  calendar  year,  to  each  1,000,000  pounds  of  butter  we  make. 
For  about  six  weeks  or  two  months  from  the  time  the  cows  are  first  turned  on  grass 
in  the  spring,  until  the  first  or  middle  of  July,  we  use  no  butter  color,  it  being  high 
enough  in  color  without  using  any.  f 

That  is  the  substance  of  the  letter. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  in  substance,  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  what  I 
have  stated  as  my  opinion. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  thought  I  would  make  the  record  com- 
plete. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  believe  I  stated  that  if  any  was  used  in  the  summer 
time,  the  quantity  was  small  compared  with  what  was  used  during  the 
rest  of  the  year. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  Mr.  Schell  will  allow  me  to  make  a  statement,  I  will 
say  that  there  are  certain  markets  in  the  United  States  where  the 
natural  color  of  the  butter  is  not  high  enough  at  any  season  of  the  year 
to  suit  the  demand;  and  if  Mr.  Sands  supplies  those  markets,  he  uses 
artificial  butter  color  in  his  butter  at  all  times.  I  speak  specially  of  St. 
Louis  and  of  Washington. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  have  changed  their  standard  on  butter  in  St.  Louis. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  am  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  standard  of  butter 
in  both  markets. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  So  am  I. 

The  Acting  CHAIRMAN.  The  speaker  will  proceed. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  gentlemen,  to  turn  from  the  manufacture  of  oleo- 
margarine to  the  manufacture  of  butter,  we  can  divide  butter  into  three 
main  classes.  The  creamery  butter,  the  good  country  butter,  and  the 
packing  stock. 

As  to  creamery  butter,  we  may  say  that  it  is  the  very  highest  class 
that  is  made,  except  perhaps  that  made  by  some  farmer,  some  dairy- 
man like  Mr.  Sharpless,  who  was  here  the  other  day,  and  who  has  the 
art  down  to  such  a  tine  point  that  the  creameries  can  not  interfere  to 


264  OLEOMARGARINE. 

any  appreciable  extent  with  tbe  market  for  his  product,  or  improve 
upon  it. 

This  butter  is  made  from  the  milk  and  cream  of  herds  of  cows  prop- 
erly bred,  properly  fed,  and  properly  milked,  or  from  milk  purchased 
from  the  farmers.  In  making  those  purchases  of  milk,  the  creameries 
have  been  going  about  over  the  territory,  inspecting  the  cows,  instruct 
ing  farmers  as  to  how  they  should  be  bred,  kept,  fed,  milked,  etc. 
This  product  is  bought  by  the  percentage  of  butter  fats  contained  in 
the  milk  as  it  is  delivered  in  the  creamery.  They  have  what  is  known 
as  the  Babco<-k  tester,  a  machine  which  makes  about  1,200  revolutions 
per  minute,  I  think.  In  it  are  placed  test  tubes  containing  milk, 
together  with  some  other  ingredients,  which  are  shaken  up  thoroughly, 
and  the  exact  amount  of  butter  fat  can  be  determined ;  and  in  order  to 
do  justice  to  the  creameries  and  the  farmers,  they  make  what  they  call 
a  composite  test,  running  over  quite  a  period  of  time,  so  as  to  get  the 
average  of  the  butter  fat  in  the  milk.  Then,  from  time  to  time,  from 
then  on,  they  test  to  see  whether  or  not  it  is  being  kept  up  to  the 
standard,  or  whether  it  is  exceeding  the  standard  originally  shown. 

I  was  talking  with  different  members  of  the  firm  of  French  Brothers' 
Dairy  Company,  at  Cincinnati,  before  I  came  here.  I  might  say  that 
Mr.  TildenR.  French,  one  of  the  present  brothers,  has  been  our  county 
treasurer.  He  stands  high  politically,  socially,  and  financially.  The 
family  have  been  in  the  dairy  business  from  a  utime  whence  the  mind 
of  man  runneth  not  to  the  contrary."  Dr.  Findley  was  telling  me  the 
other  day  that  his  mother  had  bought  both  cream  and  rnilk  from  French 
Brothers,  the  gentlemen  now  in  the  business,  and  their  ancestors  for 
more  than  thirty  years.  And  I  was  talking  with  a  Cincinnati  man  on 
Friday,  and  he  said  that  ever  since  he  could  remember  the  French 
Brothers  were  in  the  dairy  business  in  Cincinnati.  They  have  cream- 
eries in  Hamilton  County  and  creameries  in  the  other  southern  counties 
of  the  State.  Mr.  Albert  French  told  me  very  recently  that  they  had 
over  $100,000  invested  in  creameries  in  Warren  County,  one  of  our 
adjoining  counties. 

These  gentlemen,  the  French  Brothers,  tell  me  that  according  to  their 
estimate  the  farmer  who  brings  his  milk  to  their  creamery  and  sells  the 
butter  fat,  and  gets  his  milk  back,  realizes — because  of  the  perfection 
of  their  process  of  making  butter  and  the  prices  they  can  get  thereby, 
and  the  fact  that  they  can  separate  and  use  all  of  the  butter  fats,  and 
he  can  not— about  three  times  as  much  for  his  product  as  he  would  if  he 
made  it  up  according  to  the  old  farm  methods  and  sold  it ;  besides  he  has 
his  milk  back  for  any  purpose  for  which  he  wishes  to  use  it.  They  did 
not  state  any  specific  price  that  they  paid,  but  said  the  price  was  based 
on  the  price  sent  out  from  Elgin  every  Monday. 

The  general  manager  for  the  Dold  Butterine  Company,  Mr.  Clark, 
who  was  here  the  other  day,  but  who  had  nothing  to  say  because  the 
time  was  occupied,  advised  me  that  the  Dold  Butterine  Company  pays 
an  average  of  29  cents  a  pound  for  the  butter  fats  used  in  their  oleo- 
margine  factory,  and  find  difficulty  in  getting  a  sufficient  amount  at 
that. 

I  want  to  add  here  the  statements  of  Tilden  K.  French  and  Mr. 
Albert  French,  of  French  Brothers — to  the  effect  that  they  do  not  recog- 
nize oleomargarine  as  a  competitor  in  their  business  at  all.  On  the 
contrary,  they  commend  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine, 
in  that  it  supplies  people  who  are  not  able  to  buy  their  product. 

Our  next  class  is  good  country  butter;  that  is  the  kind  perhaps 
which  you  gentlemen  were  talking  about — that  which  is  worked  out  by 


OLEOMARGARINE.  265 

hand  with  proper  care  and  with  a  regard  for  cleanliness.  But  some- 
times, as  was  suggested,  the  cow  will  put  her  foot  in  the  pail;  and  in 
that  case  cleanliness,  of  course,  is  not  guaranteed. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  But  they  are  not  compelled  to  use  that  milk. 

Mr.  SOHELL.  They  are  not  compelled  to  use  it,  but  how  many  pros- 
perous, enterprising  farmers  are  going  to  throw  away  that  pail  of  milk, 
especially  if  they  are  supplying  the  market?  They  will  probably  see 
that  it  does  not  go  on  their  own  table. 

Now,  we  also  know,  everyone  of  us,  that  good  butter  makers  in  the 
country  have  a  market  for  their  product.  They  have  contracts,  the 
same  as  Mr.  Sharpless,  to  supply  their  neighbors,  even  neighboring 
farmers.  They  have  their  contracts  to  supply  the  residents  of  little 
villages;  and  they  get  the  same  price  the  year  round,  whether  butter 
is  more  or  less  than  the  price  they  are  getting.  In  some  of  the  cases 
about  which  I  know,  the  farmers'  wives  who  have  these  contracts  sup- 
ply butter  the  year  around  at  25  cents  a  pound.  Sometimes  their  neigh- 
bors are  getting  10  cents  and  sometimes  they  are  getting  the  full  25 
cents.  That  is  another  class  of  butter. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  am  going  into  details,  partly  on  the  suggestion  of 
the  two  gentlemen  present  and  partly  because,  while  every  politician 
is  not  a  statesman,  every  statesman  must  necessarily  be  or  has  been  a 
politician,  and  as  such  he  must  have  gone  through  the  various  districts, 
good,  bad,  and  indifferent. 

Senator  MONEY.  A  statesman  is  a  dead  politician. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes;  that  is  very  true.  Then,  perhaps  we  can  confine 
ourselves  to  politicians,  if  you  insist  upon  it. 

Now,  we  are  not  going  to  take  you  through  the  green  fields,  and  bab- 
bling brooks,  and  sh  ady  lanes,  and  watch  the  pretty  milkmaid  who  "pails  " 
the  cow.  We  are  going  to  get  down  to  actual  facts.  We  are  going  to 
go  through  the  stubble  fields,  grown  up  with  ragweed.  We  are  going 
to  recall  the  taste  of  that  butter  which  comes  on  the  table  made  from 
the  milk  of  cows  fed  on  this  ragweed.  We  are  going  to  call  attention 
to  the  barnyard  in  winter,  often  fenced  in  with  a  rail  fence,  which  also 
serves  as  a  pigpen,  and  the  cows  and  the  pigs  sleep  together,  with 
mud  knee  deep.  Sometimes  they  hunt  for  a  high  and  a  dry  place,  and 
sometimes  they  do  not  even  take  that  trouble,  they  are  so  accustomed 
to  the  mud.  We  are  going  to  call  attention  to  the  hired  man,  when  he 
goes  out  to  milk  the  cows — to  the  condition  of  his  hands,  to  the  cold  in 
his  head,  etc.  Sometimes  he  takes  water  from  the  pump  and  washes 
off  just  a  little  bit  of  mud  from  the  teats,  so  that  it  will  not  be  quite  so 
nasty  for  his  fingers;  but  as  he  milks,  we  watch  the  melted  proceeds  of 
the  night's  repose  drip  down  from  his  hands  and  go  into  the  milk  pail. 
We  also  notice  the  general  condition  of  many  of  those  cows.  Some 
novelist,  writing  a  few  years  ago,  spoke  of  the  general  condition  of  the 
cows  in  New  York;  and  the  active  interest  the  hero  took,  for  the  love 
of  humanity  and  the  little  ones,  to  get  better  sanitary  conditions,  etc. 
His  experience  is  not  a  circumstance  compared  with  some  barnyards 
we  have  all  seen.  Take  the  case  of  cows  with  the  hollow  horn,  in  the 
winter  time 

Mr.  HOARD.  Cows  with  what? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Hollow  horn. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  will  give  you  $100  for  a  case  of  hollow  horn. 

Senator  MONEY.  Well,  I  will  give  you  $500  to  demonstrate  that  it 
don't  exist.  I  have  bored  the  horns  for  it  many  times. 

Mr.  HOARD.  As  a  disease? 

Senator  MONEY.  They  will  die  if  you  do  not  bore  them,  too. 


266  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  right.  We  will  call  attention  to  the  cows  you 
have  all  seen. 

Senator  MONEY.  They  have  the  hollow  tail,  too.  They  are  both 
recognized  diseases. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Dickens  speaks  of  the  cow  with  the  iron  tail.    [Laughter.] 

Senator  MONEY.  Then  we  have  some  with  the  hollow  belly.  That  is 
what  is  the  matter  with  most  of  them. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  what  is  the  matter  with  most  of  the  cows  with 
the  hollow  horn,  too,  and  the  cows  with  the  running  sores  on  them— 
the  cows,  as  described  by  the  novelist,  with  the  ends  of  their  tails  rot- 
ting off,  switching  during  the  milking  process.  God  only  knows  what 
we  are  getting  from  that  pail  of  milk. 

We  will  also  refer  to  the  churn — the  children  who  work  the  churn 
dasher,  the  cats  and  chickens  and  toads  and  roaches  about  the  milk 
house  or  spring  house.  A  gentleman  was  telling  me  the  other  day 
what  he  claimed  to  be  a  true  instance  about  a  poor  family  of  tenants, 
in  which  the  supply  of  wooden  ware  was  limited,  and  they  used  the 
churn  between  churning  days  for  the  purpose  of  soaking  the  baby's 
clothes,  and  then  on  churning  days  they  scoured  it  out  and  got  the 
butter  ready  for  the  market. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Did  you  believe  that  story! 

Mr.  SCHELL.  1  can  readily  believe  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  you  want  to  imitate  that  butter? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No ;  we  do  not  want  to  imitate  that  butter.  We  do  not 
want  to  imitate  any  butter. 

Now;  we  will  follow  this  product.  We  will  go  with  the  farmer's  wife 
to  the  country  stores,  or  we  will  be  there  when  she  arrives.  We  will 
see  her  trading  it  in  for  what  she  can  get — 5,  6,  7,  8,  10  cents  a  pound. 
We  will  see  the  grocer's  clerk,  before  he  puts  it  away,  perhaps,  run  a 
case  knife  through  it  to  see  how  many  hairs  it  contains,  and  see  the 
case  knife  come  out  with  the  hair  adhering  to  it.  And  in  order  to  get 
a  better  price  by  preventing  the  same  discovery,  when  he  sends  it  to 
his  market — the  merchant  at  the  railroad  town — we  will  see  him  have 
that  butter  worked  over  and  some  of  those  hairs  taken  out.  But  of 
course  he  can  not  remove  the  filth,  about  which  our  Philadelphia  friend 
was  speaking  the  other  day,  unless  he  has  a  renovating  factory,  which 
he  usually  does  not  possess. 

We  will  see  what  she  gets  for  it.  Usually  the  trade  is  divided  up 
into  tobacco  and  snuff,  New  Orleans  molasses,  brown  sugar,  a  little 
calico,  etc.  Speaking  of  snuff,  we  will  go  back  and  see  this  same 
woman  at  the  churn,  driving  the  children  away  to  see  why  the  butter 
does  not  come,  with  a  snuff  brush  in  her  mouth.  We  will  see  her  pour 
in  a  little  hot  water  around  the  churn-dasher,  and  a  little  cold  water, 
and  sometimes  we  will  see  her  take  off  the  lid,  to  the  destruction  of 
the  flies  hanging  about  there,  and  then,  as  she  is  working  the  butter, 
we  will  see  her  picking  out  the  mangled  remains  of  the  flies. 

Now  that,  gentlemen,  is  another  kind  of  butter.  That  is  the  kind  of 
butter  which  we  do  not  recognize  as  a  competitor  of  oleomargarine  any 
more  than  French  Brothers,  or  any  up-to-date  dairymen,  recognize 
oleomargarine  as  a  competitor  of  their  goods. 

That  butter  goes  through  various  hands,  until  it  finally  reaches  the 
renovated  butter  man,  where  it  is  made  into  process  butter — resurrec- 
tion butter.  Most  of  it  goes  to  the  creamery  district  of  Illinois.  I 
think  I  can  follow  the  same  roll  of  butter,  from  personal  knowledge  of 
the  people,  from  the  mountain  districts  of  West  Virginia,  from  the  small 
farmer  to  the  country  store,  to  the  store  at  the  railroad  town,  to  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  267 

commission  men  in  Cincinnati,  and  from  there  to  Chicago,  where  it  is 
sold  to  the  process  butter  factories. 

Now,  as  to  the  method  of  renovating  butter 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  One  moment.  You  have  just  spoken  of  having 
butter  in  oleomargarine.  What  class  of  butter  do  they  purchase  to 
mix  with  the  oils  that  go  to  make  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  can  only  state  for  certain  factories.  There  are  other 
gentlemen  here  who  can  speak  for  their  own.  In  the  factories  of  which 
I  know,  so  far  as  butter  has  been  used,  it  has  been  the  very  best — not 
fancy  butter,  perhaps,  but  the  best  creamery  butter.  They  insist 
that  they  must  have  the  best  butter,  as  well  as  the  best  of  the  other 
products,  or  the  result  is  a  failure.  But  the  factories  I  represent 
are  now  using,  not  butter,  but  milk  and  cream.  And  after  a  while  I 
will  submit  to  you  one  of  the  stamps  required  by  the  Government, 
which  contains  approximately  the  materials  which  enter  into  the 
product. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Do  all  of  these  first-class  oleomargarine  manu- 
facturers use  the  same  formula? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Not  exactly.  I  think  I  am  safe  in  saying  that.  If  they 
did,  they  would  Lave  the  same  class  of  product,  while  it  is  a  well-recog- 
nized fact  that  some  of  them  can  sell  a  great  deal  more  goods  than  the 
others.  And  they  sell  them  on  their  merits,  and  in  competition,  not 
with  butter  of  any  class  or  description,  but  in  competition  with  the 
product  of  other  factories. 

Coming  back  to  the  point  I  was  about  to  make  as  regards  the  man- 
ufacture of  process  butter,  the  question  has  been  raised  here,  and  it  was 
stated  by  someone  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  use  sulphuric  acid  in 
clarifying  and  washing  this  packing  stock  during  the  process  of  making 
it  up  into  resurrection  butter.  I  want  to  say  that  sulphuric  acid  is 
used.  I  want  to  corroborate  the  statement  which  was  made  at  that 
time  and  contradicted,  and  I  know  it.  I  am  not  betraying  any  profes- 
sional secrets  (if  I  do  not  go  too  much  into  details),  but  I  was  and  am 
attorney  for  people  who  were  in  that  business  and  they  did  use  sul- 
phuric acid  to  help  in  washing  and  clarifying  and  deodorizing  packing 
stock  that  went  into  process  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  injurious  to  health,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is,  indeed;  any  particle  of  it. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  May  I  ask  the  gentleman  a  question? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes;  all  right. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  It  is  simply  this :  Are  you  willing  to  have  questions 
asked  ? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  When  I  finish,  if  the  committee  say  that  there  is  time 
for  it,  I  am  willing.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Adams  a  question,  though, 
and  1  am  willing  to  answer  a  question  for  him  in  turn. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  do  not  wish  to  insist  upon  it.  I  just  wish  the  gentle- 
man would  exercise  his  own  will  in  the  matter.  I  don't  wish  to  urge  it. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Well,  it  is  the  time  of  the  committee  that  is  being  used, 
not  my  own.  I  am  willing  to  stay  here  for  a  month,  as  far  as  I  am 
concerned;  but  if  Mr.  Ada"ms  wishes,  I  will  be  glad  if  he  will  place  him- 
self on  record  now,  that  I  may  know  how  to  use  him  later  on,  as  to 
whether  or  not  he  would  consent  to  a  bill  as  a  substitute  for  the  Grout 
bill  which  would  so  hedge  oleomargarine  around  with  penalties  and 
conditions  that  it  would  be  practically  impossible  to  pass  it  oft'  for 
butter. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  am  very  glad  the  gentleman  has  reiterated  by  asking 
me  a  question;  and  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  answer  it.  I  would  like 
to  say  that  I  would  be  in  favor  of  a  law  that 


268  OLEOMAKGAKINE. 

Senator  BATE.  Is  that  the  question  here  ?  Why  not  have  the  speaker 
go  ahead  ? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  presume  the  committee  would  prefer  to  have 
Mr.  Schell  proceed. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Why,  Senator,  the  only  question  is  this — you  were  not 
in  when  I  began.  I  find,  on  examination  of  the  record,  the  evidence 
presented,  that  the  friends  of  this  measure  are  not  on  record  as  to 
exactly  what  they  want — whether  they  want  to  absolutely  prohibit  the 
manufacture  of  colored  oleomargarine,  or  whether  they  simply  want  it, 
as  it  is  claimed  by  some,  so  hedged  about  that  it  would  be  impossible 
for  it  to  encroach  upon  the  territory  of  pure  butter.  That  is  all. 

Senator  BATE.  I  was  not  referring  to  that  so  much  as  to  the  irregu- 
larity of  a  colloquy  between  the  witness  and  an  outsider.  I  do  not 
think  they  should  both  go  on  and  proceed  to  occupy  the  time  of  the 
committee  in  that  way.  I  thought  that  was  exactly  the  thing  we  were 
not  to  do. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Being  anxious  in  every  way  to  comply  with  any  rule  or 
regulation,  we  will  drop  that. 

Senator  BATE.  I  have  no  objection  to  it,  sir,  if  the  committee  desires 
to  have  the  hearing  proceed  in  this  way.  I  was  simply  calling  atten- 
tion to  it. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  In  view  of  the  circumstances,  I  see  no  objection 
to  what  has  occurred. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Well,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  did  not  ask  the 
question  for  the  purpose  of  getting  an  opportunity  to  answer  another 
pne.  I  imagined  that  the  gentlemen  perhaps  might  prefer,  as  many 
men  do  in  appearing  before  a  committee  upon  a  subject  of  this  kind, 
to  have  the  subject  opened  up  with  the  greatest  latitude  possible,  in 
order  to  get  all  the  information  which  we  can.  But,  waiving;  my  own 
question,  and  replying;  to  the  question  of  the  gentleman,  I  wish  to  say 
that  I  would  be  heartily  in  favor  of  a  law  which  would  make  all  men 
weigh  165  pounds.  I  do  not  think  that  such  a  law  is  possible.  I  do 
not  think  that  you  could  execute  it.  I  believe  that  such  a  law  as  the 
gentleman  names  is  an  impossible  proposition.  I  do  not  believe  that 
you  can  draw  any  law  which  will  absolutely  prevent  the  fraudulent 
sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter.  If  the 
impossible  were  possible,  I  should  be  in  favor  of  it. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  can  be  said  of  any  law  which  ever  has  been 
or  ever  will  be  passed.  There  never  was  a  law  passed  anywhere  which 
could  not  be  evaded  in  some  way. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  am  obliged  to  Mr.  Adams. 

Now,  I  come  to  the  question,  u  Are  these  various  products  competi- 
tive ?"  We  insist  that  they  are  not.  Every  article  sold  in  the  United 
States,  not  governed  by  a  trust,  is  sold  on  its  merits.  1  take  that  to 
be  a  conceded  fact.  Th<  re  is  an  immense  market  for  the  creamery 
product  at  prices  according  to  the  grade  of  goods.  Even  the  different 
grades  of  creamery  butter  must  sell  on  their  own  merits,  and  not  in 
competition  with  the  higher  grades. 

Mr.  Hamilton,  of  Pennsylvania,  as  I  understood  him,  said  that  the 
production  of  creamery  butter  in  his  State  could  be  doubled  and  still 
find  a  home  market.  There  is  no  question  of  any  competition  with 
creamery  butter,  I  take  it.  Now,  good  butter  makers,  as  I  have  stated, 
have  a  market  the  year  around  from  25  cents  a  pound  up  for  their 
product.  As  an  evidence,  Mr.  Sharpless  gets  35  cents  a  pound.  His 
only  objection  seems  to  be  that  he  wants  to  get  that  to  50.  There  he  is 
in  competition  with  the  creameries,  and  the  creameries  are  in  competi- 


OLEOMARGARINE.  269 

tiou  with  Mr.  Sharpless;  oleomargarine  does  not  enter  into  the  matter 
at  all, 

As  to  packing  stock,  as  to  the  final  end  of  the  batter  about  which  we 
have  talked,  and  into  the  details  of  which  we  have  gone  pretty  closely, 
it  is  regulated  by  the  supply  and  demand.  It  is  not  used  in  its  raw 
state  on  the  table  of  anybody  who  purchases  something  to  spread  on 
his  bread,  unless  in  some  rare  instances.  The  price  of  packing  stock 
now  is,  I  think,  about  11J  cents  in  Chicago.  I  only  estimate  that,  but 
I  am  in  a  position  to  know  it,  because  the  first  thing  I  will  do  when  I 
get  away  from  Washington  will  be  to  go  to  Chicago  to  straighten  out  a 
tangle  in  regard  to  a  carload  of  this  stuff  which  has  been  tied  up  there 
in  litigation. 

As  to  the  price  of  the  renovated  butter,  I  can  only  say  that  it  depends 
upon  whether  it  is  fresh  when  it  gets  to  the  consumer  or  whether  it  is 
a  few  days  old.  By  the  most  improved  methods  they  have  only  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  it  to  keep,  I  think,  six  or  eight  days. 

The  oleomargarine  factory  and  the  creamery  are  only  competitors  in 
any  sense  in  the  attitude  of  purchasers;  not  of  sellers.  They  compete 
for  the  milk  of  the  farmers;  and  in  that  way  their  competition  is  a 
benefit  to  the  iariner  and  the  dairyman,  rather  than  otherwise. 

I  was  advised  by  Mr.  Babbitt,  one  of  our  men  who  was  in  Detroit 
recently,  that  there  was  a  conference  of  butter  men  there  during  the 
holidays. 

Mr.  Lestrade  did  not  say  the  other  day  whether  that  was  one  of  the 
meetings  to  which  he  was  invited  or  not.  But  I  was  advised  by  Mr. 
Babbitt  (who  usually  knows  what  he  is  talking  about)  that  the  object 
and  attempt  of  that  meeting  was  the  forming  of  a  butter  trust;  that 
they  met  prematurely,  expecting  this  bill  to  pass  before  the  holiday 
recess,  arid  that  they  adjourned  to  meet  again,  after  the  bill  passed,  so 
that  they  could  perfect  their  organization. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  has  been  denied,  though,  has  it  not? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  Detroit  meeting  has  not  been  mentioned  as  yet, 
but  the  fact  that  they  are  contemplating  a  butter  trust  has  been  denied. 

Now,  on  the  subject  of  prices,  1  want  to  refer  to  an  advertisement  in 
the  Cincinnati  Times  Star,  the  5th  edition  of  December  28;  this  also 
shows  that  oleomargarine  is  being  sold  in  Cincinnati  for  what  it  is  arid 
that  it  is  a  very  willing  victim  who  is  victimized  in  that  city  by  buying 
it  for  butter. 

The  advertisement  to  which  I  call  attention  is  that  of  B.  H.  Kroger, 
who  advertises  "  forty  tea  and  grocery  stores." 

Now,  I  do  not  know  Mr.  Kroger.  He  is  not  a  client  of  mine.  I  have 
represented  at  different  times  a  great  many  of  the  dealers  there,  but 
never  Mr.  Kroger.  He  advertises  butter  at  25  cents  per  pound,  cream- 
ery butter.  He  does  not  advertise  country  butter  at  all.  He  adver- 
tises two  grades  of  oleomargarine — one  at  12  cents  per  pound,  the  other 
at  15  cents  per  pound. 

Senator  FOSTER.  What  is  it  that  makes  that  difference? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  difference  in  the  materials  used.  For  example, 
the  more  of  a  higher  priced  material  is  used,  the  higher  must  be  the 
price  of  the  oleomargarine;  and  the  higher  priced  materials  used  in  this 
case,  I  take  it,  consist  of  butter  fat. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Is  it  the  butter  that  they  use? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  butter  fats,  milk  and  cream,  that  enter  into  its 
composition. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  do  you  mean  by  "butter  fats? " 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  butter  fat  is  the  fat 


270  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  grease  that  is  in  the  butter? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is  the  fat  that  is  extracted  from  the  milk  and  cream, 
and  by  improved  processes  the  creamery  man  can  extract  more  of  this 
butter  fat  than  the  dairy  man.  That  is  where  they  have  such  an 
immense  advantage. 

Senator  MONEY.  By  this  centrifugal  force? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  By  centrifugal  force.  Now,  while  I  am  on  this  subject, 
there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  talk  (not  testimony,  but  talk)  here  as  to 
the  selling  of  oleomargarine  for  butter,  aud  how  a  man  goes  in  a  store 
and  calls  for  butter  and  gets  oleomargarine.  But  the  statements  have 
been  a  unit,  with  the  exception  of  the  Philadelphia  men,  as  to  the  fact 
that  the  stamp  always  appeared  on  the  wrapper,  and  the  customer  found 
it  when  he  got  home,  and  then  he  knew  that  he  had  gotten  oleo. 

Now,  if  B.  H.  Kroger  were  to  sell  one  of  his  customers  oleomar- 
garine for  butter,  according  to  the  testimony,  or  the  talk  of  our  oppo- 
nents, he  wraps  it  in  one  of  these  wrappers  containing  the  stamp.  The 
customer  goes  home.  lie  finds  out  that  he  has  been  swindled.  Well, 
B.  H.  Kroger  is  not  going  to  victimize  that  man,  if  he  is  an  intelligent 
man,  more  than  once.  So  he  not  only  loses  his  butter  trade,  but  he 
loses  his  trade  in  coffee,  in  canned  pumpkins,  canned  string  beans,  aud 
all  canned  goods  here  advertised,  corn,  starch,  tomatoes,  peaches, 
asparagus,  flour,  sugar,  and  everything  else  that  is  handled  at  that 
store.  He  loses  his  entire  custom,  all  for  the  difference  between  the 
price  of  a  pound  of  oleo  and  a  pound  of  butter.  Gentlemen,  it  stands 
to  reason  that  that  is  not  done  to  any  great  extent. 

Gentlemen,  in  regard  to  this  subject  generally,  I  want  to  say  that 
industries,  like  individuals,  have  their  periods  of  growth,  of  maturity, 
and  of  decay.  In  the  butter  industry  the  churn  is  rapidly  following 
the  sickle,  which  was  used  in  the  age  when  Dutch  churns  were  invented. 
The  sickle  was  displaced  by  the  cradle,  that  by  the  reaper,  that  by  the 
binder;  and  they  tell  me  that  in  the  wild  and  woolly  but  progressive 
West  a  machine  thrashes  the  grain  as  it  goes  along.  And  the  Dutch 
churn  must  follow  the  example  of  the  crooked  stick  attached  to  the 
horns  of  an  ox  with  a  hickory  withe,  which  the  Dutch-churn  farmer 
used  to  cultivate  the  soil,  but  which  has  been  displaced,  step  by  step, 
by  a  wooden  plow,  a  single  shovel,  a  double  shovel,  and  so  forth  and 
so  on,  until  we  have  the  labor-saving  cultivator  and  riding-car  of  the 
East  and  the  immense  steam  plows  of  the  mighty  West.  Recall  your 
last  visit  to  the  National  Museum,  and  compare  the  wooden  wheeled 
wagon  of  the  same  generation  as  the  Dutch  churn  of  theunprogressive 
farmer's  wife  with  the  wagon  of  to-day  with  which  the  progressive 
farmer  hauls  his  milk  to  the  nearest  creamery  and  the  carriage  in 
which  he  drives  his  family  to  church  on  Sunday.  Examine  every- 
thing, gentlemen,  that  has  ever  been  produced  by  the  ingenuity  of  man 
to  aid  in  the  process  of  extracting  wealth  from  the  soil,  or  from  the 
animals  over  which  God  gave  man  dominion,  and  you  will  find  immense 
improvements  in  all,  except  that  in  the  old  Dutch  churn  the  limit  did 
not  seem  to  have  been  reached  until  science  took  a  hand  and  creameries 
were  established  to  supply  the  wealthy,  and  the  manufacturer  of  oleo- 
margarine came  into  the  field  in  the  interest  of  the  workingman. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Did  not  this  gentleman  from  New  York  the  other 
day  say  that  the  old  Danish  way  of  making  butter  was  the  best? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is  the  slowest. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Did  he  not  say  it  made  the  best  butter? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  makes  the  best  butter  under  the  proper  conditions; 
but  he  also  said  that  the  ordinary  butter  makers  do  not  understand 


OLEOMARGARINE.  27 1 

any  more  about  that  process  than  a  pig  does  about  side  pockets,  or 
something  to  that  effect. 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  are  coming  to  the  opponents  of  the  bill. 

They  have  assembled  here  from  day  to  day  almost  as  patiently  as 
this  committee.  They  are  law-abiding,  God-fearing  citizens.  They 
have  appeared  personally  and  by  counsel.  They  have  testified  when 
they  could  and  listened  to  the  other  side  when  they  could  not.  They 
have  done  nothing  to  detract  from  the  dignity  of  debate,  have  spoken 
when  invited,  and  with  confidence  in  God,  the  Constitution,  and  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States.  They  have  presented,  when  allowed, 
the  reasons  why  they  are  entitled  to  enjoy  the  inalienable  rights  of 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  including,  as  lias  been  said, 
the  right  to  hold  their  property  secure  from  molestation  and  confisca- 
tion. They  have  made  less  noise,  but  really  outnumber  and  are 
infinitely  better  behaved  than  the  friends  of  the  other  side. 

Among  the  opponents  of  this  bill  we  find  the  oleomargarine  manu- 
facturers, who  are  here  resisting  practical  confiscation  of  their  property. 

Some  years  ago,  before  my  general  practice  became  as  extensive  as  it 
is  now,  I  did  a  great  deal  of  loaning  of  money  for  certain  wealthy 
clients.  Among  other  things  I  was  called  upon  to  investigate  was  the 
subject  of  making  loans  on  factory  property.  And  those  who  have  had 
experience  will  bear  me  out  in  stating  that  a  factory  property  is  not 
considered  a  proper  subject  for  a  purchase  for  any  business  other  than 
that  for  which  it  was  erected;  and  even  when  in  active  operation  is 
good  for  a  loan  of  but  a  small  per  cent  of  its  actual  cost. 

We  have  our  machinery,  which  could  not  be  used  for  anything  else. 
We  have  our  signs — and  I  want  to  say  right  here  that  the  oleomar- 
garine manufacturers  have  spent  thousands  and  thousands  of  dollars 
in  sending  signs  broadcast  over  the  country,  not  for  the  purpose  of 
aiding  in  any  deception,  but  for  the  purpose  of  advertising  their  prod- 
uct. These  necessarily  are  a  complete  loss.  There  is  the  good  will 
which  has  been  built  up,  the  money  which  has  been  spent  in  advertising 
and  sending  men  over  the  country  and  talking  up  their  product.  On 
all  of  this  expenditure  returns  are  not  yet  in.  It  is  an  investment  for 
the  future. 

Now,  as  to  the  plants  of  the  other  people,  I  do  not  know;  but  I  do 
know  this — that  our  little  factory  in  Cincinnati  paid,  not  for  the  build- 
ing site,  etc.,  but  for  the  plant  proper,  situated  on  a  leasehold,  $18,000; 
and  that  property  would  be  practically  valueless  if  this  bill  were  to 
become  a  law.  And,  gentlemen,  are  we  not  entitled  to  have  our  prop- 
erty taken  from  us,  if  it  must  be  taken  from  us,  only  by  due  process  of 
law!  Are  we  not  entitled  to  be  paid  for  it  if  it  is  taken?  And  yet 
there  is  no  provision  in  this  bill  to  take  care  of  any  questions  of  this 
kind. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  it  would  entirely  destroy  the 
value  of  these  properties? 

Mr.  SCIEELL.  I  think  so;  and  I  make  that  statement' from  experience 
in  estimating  the  values  of  factory  plants.  Even  when  a  plant  is  in 
operation,  it  is  not  considered  a  good  subject  for  a  loan,  because  if  the 
business  should  fail,  the  factory  is  considered  a  dead  loss. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  statement  admits,  it  seems  to  me, 
that  the  only  chance  to  sell  this  product  is  by  giving  ic  this  yellow 
color.  You  have  said  that  color  does  not  affect  the  healthiulness  of 
it — it  is  simply  a  concession  to  the  custom  and  taste  of  people,  and  is  a 
mere  matter  of  appearance.  Have  you  considered  the  question  whether 
it  would  be  possible  to  cultivate  a  taste  for  an  article  not  colored  iu 


272  OLEOMARGARINE. 

that  way.     I  am  endeavoring  to  get  at  the  question  of  how  far  this 
bill  would  totally  wreck  the  business. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  We  have  considered  that. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  say  you  have  a  business  which  depends 
for  its  life  solely  upon  its  ability  to  produce  an  article  of  a  certain 
color,  whereas  these  other  people  are  complaining  that  it  is  their  color 
you  are  imitating. 

Senator  MONEY.  It  is  not  the  other  people's  color ;  it  is  their  own 
color.  It  was  introduced  by  the  oleomargarine  people,  and  the  butter 
men  adopted  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  guess  God  established  it  originally,  sir. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  oleomargarine  manufacturers  discovered  it,  and 
the  other  people  united  in  imitating  it 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  an  idea,  from  what  you  have  said 
about  the  character  of  these  goods,  that  this  color  is  an  incidental 
matter  which  would  soon  be  overcome  by  the  ordinary  process  of  adver- 
tisement and  the  ordinary  good  sense  of  the  community. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  think  it  has  been  stated  here  by  one  side,  and  con- 
ceded by  the  other,  that  taste  constituted  a  large  per  cent  of  the 
attractiveness  of  a  food  product,  and  color  the. balance.  Professor 
Wiley,  an  expert  on  the  subject,  I  think,  stated  that  the  eye  aided  the 
palate;  and  that  no  matter  if  an  article  was  just  as  good  as  any  of  its 
class,  if  it  did  not  look  as  you  expected  it  to  look,  you  were  not  going  to 
have  nearly  the  appetite  for  it  that  you  otherwise  would.  And  I  think 
that  statement  will  be  borne  out  by  your  everyday  experience.  You 
go  to  different  hotels,  to  a  certain  hotel,  by  choice,  in  preference  to 
another,  not  because  they  give  you  anything  better  to  eat,  but  because 
they  get  it  up  better,  in  better  style.  They  please  the  palate  and  they 
please  the  eye.  The  eye  aids  the  palate;  and  you  enjoy  the  food  better 
even  if  the  cooking  is  not  any  better,  and  they  have  not  really  as  much 
to  eat. 

Now,  in  addition  to  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers,  there  are 
interested  in  this  bill  the  cattle  growers,  the  sheep  growers,  who  have 
been  represented;  the  cotton  growers  and  cotton  seed  oil  mills,  who 
will  be  represented;  and  1  might  say,  in  addition  to  the  interests  of 
the  cattle  and  hog  growers,  the  people  interested  in  the  raising  of  every 
competitive  animal — sheep,  poultry,  or  whatever  comes  into  competition 
with  the  product  of  the  cattle  or  the  hog— are  interested  in  this  bill, 
because  the  prices  are  correspondingly  advanced  as  the  prices  of  cattle 
and  of  hogs  are  advanced. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  longer  do  you  intend  to  proceed? 
We  must  adjourn  the  session  for  at  least  half  an  hour,  1  suppose. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  can  go  on  this  afternoon ;  I  do  not  know  how  much 
time  I  will  want,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  custom  about  meeting  in  the 
afternoon  ? 

Senator  FOSTER.  Half  past  2  has  been  the  usual  hour  for  reassem- 
bling. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  you  will  be  prepared  to  resume  at  half 
past  2. 

Senator  FOSTER.  You  have  the  floor,  Mr.  Schell. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  will  be  conceded  the  floor  at  half  past  2. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  cotton  seed  oil  men  are  here,  and 
may  be  here  this  afternoon  when  Mr.  Schell  gets  through. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  All  right ;  we  will  be  ready  to  hear  them  at 
that  time. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  273 

(Thereupon,  at  12  o'clock  m.,  the  committee  took  a  recess  until  2.30 
o'clock  p.  in.) 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  committee  resumed  its  session. 

Present:  Senator  Dolliver  (acting  chairman);  0.  Y.  Knight,  secre- 
tary of  the  National  Dairy  Union;  Hon.  William  M.  Springer,  of 
Sringfield,  111.,  representing  the  National  Live  Stock  Association; 
Frank  VV.  Tillinghast,  representing  the  Vermont  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany, of  Providence,  K.  I.;  Charles  E.  Schell,  representing  the  Ohio 
Butterine  Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  Patrick  Dolan,  president  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers'  Association;  John  Pierce,  representing  the 
Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron  and  Steel  Workers;  W.  E.  Miller, 
representing  the  Armour  Packing  Company,  Kansas  City,  Mo.; 
John  F.  Jelke,  representing  Braun  &  Fitts,  Chicago,  111.,  and  others. 

Mr.  SCHELL  at  this  point  permitted  an  interruption  to  hear  from  Mr. 
Patrick  Dolan  and  Mr.  John  Pierce,  whose  statements  against  the  bill 
appear  later. 

CONTINUATION  OF  STATEMENT  OF  CHARLES  E.  SCHELL. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Before  I  go  ahead  I  want  to  say  that  what  these  gen- 
tlemen have  said  has  cut  down  niy  remarks  somewhat.  But  I  want  to 
add  to  what  they  have  both  said,  and  in  reply  to  your  questions,  before 
going  on  with  my  argument,  that  the  poor  man  has  his  pride  just  the 
same  as  the  rich  man;  and,  as  the  first  gentleman  put  it,  they  do  not 
want  their  poverty  legislated  on  their  table  three  times  a  day,  as  would 
be  the  case  if  they  were  compelled  to  use  white  oleomargarine  or  go 
without  anything  to  spread  on  their  bread  at  all. 

On  the  subject  of  frauds  that  are  perpetrated  I  will  speak  later  on, 
and  will  invite  any  questions  which  the  Chair  or  the  committee  may 
deem  proper  to  ask  as  to  what  I  know  about  it. 

This  morning  I  was  enumerating  the  various  people  who  were  before 
the  committee,  by  their  duly  authorized  representatives,  asking  that 
this  bill  should  not  become  a  law.  Not  that  that  should  have  any 
effect;  it  is  not  the  people  who  count;  it  is  a  question  whether  or  not 
it  is  a  just  and  proper  measure.  Of  course,  they  all  want  to  be  heard. 
Every  man  who  is  interested  is  entitled  to  be  heard  and  entitled  to  be 
considered.  But  the  main  question  still  remains,  u  Is  it  a  proper  sub- 
ject for  legislation,  and  does  the  bill  properly  legislate  on  this  subject?" 

In  addition  to  the  people  I  named  this  morning,  we  have  on  our  side 
every  intelligent  farmer — not  the  farmers  who  are  dictated  to  by  the 
dairy-paper  publishers  or  the  representatives  of  the  would-be  butter 
trust,  but  the  farmer  who  thinks  for  himself,  because  he  knows  that 
everything  that  is  on  his  farm  is  enhanced  in  value  by  reason  of  the 
increased  market  for  a  part  of  what  he  raises.  Every  time  that  his 
beef  is  increased  in  value  its  competitor,  the  sheep,  goes  up  just  that 
much;  poultry  will  bring  a  great  deal  better  price,  and  so  on  through 
every  product  that  he  raises  that  goes  into  the  markets  for  people  to 
eat. 

Now.  these  two  gentlemen  who  have  just  spoken  are  here  directly 
representing  65,000  of  another  class,  a  very  small  portion  of  another 
class,  who  must  eat  either  white  bleo  or  gravy,  as  the  case  may  be,  in 
case  this  bill  becomes  a  law.  The  ordinary  "sop  "  which  you  as  politi- 
cians have  probably  found  on  the  tables  of  a  great  many  of  your  con- 
stituents, the  same  which  I  have  found  on  the  tables  ot  many  people 
with  whom  I  have  stopped  when  out  bicycling,  riding,  hunting,  or 
fishing,  does  not  parade  the  poverty  of  the  man  who  has  it  on  his  table 

S.  Kep.  2043 18 


274  OLEOMARGARINE. 

as  much  as  the  white  oleomargarine  would.  Somebody  has  said  that 
we  make  a  greater  effort  to  appear  happy  than  to  really  be  so;  and 
that  is  the  fact.  That,  perhaps,  prevails  more  in  the  wealthier  class 
than  it  does  in  the  poor  class ;  but  it  prevails  in  every  class  of  humanity. 

On  this  subject  I  might  also  quote  the  remark  that  "  a  hole  may  be 
the  accident  of  a  day,  but  a  patch  is  premeditated  poverty."  The  gravy 
might  be  the  accident  of  a  day,  but  white  oleo  would  be  premeditatc-d 
poverty;  and  the  man  must  so  advertise  to  his  children  and  the  visitor 
who  sits  at  his  board. 

In  addition  to  these  classes,  every  man  who  is  willing  that  others 
should  have  the  same  right  which  he  claims  for  liimself  is  on  our  side 
of  the  fence;  and  the  man  who  denies  to  me  any  right  which  he  claims 
for  himself  is  a  robber  and  a  thief  just  as  much  as  if  he  should  rob  me 
of  my  money. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  had  intended  going  into  an  analysis  as  to  what 
was  presented  by  our  side  before  the  House  committee;  but  I  will  have 
to  cut  that  out,  and  will  merely  refer  to  some  testimony  which  I  want 
to  use  in  argument.  I  quote  Commissioner  Wilson,  at  page  108  of  the 
House  report,  where  he  says: 

"I  should  regard  the  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  on  colored  oleomargarine 
as  prohibitive.  1  do  not  think  the  manufacturers  can  do  much  with  it 
with  a  tax  of  that  amount.  I  think  the  bill  would  defeat  the  end  of 
deriving  any  revenue  from  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine.  I  think 
that  would  be  largely  the  resul  of  its  passage." 

Then  he  goes  on  to  recommend  a  change  in  the  existing  law.     He  says : 

"  I  would  recommend  a  change  which  would  require  the  manufacturer 
to  put  up  statutory  packages  in  subpackages  to  meet  the 'lowest  demand 
of  the  retail  trade  and  the  highest  demand  of  the  wholesale  trade,  upon 
each  of  which  subpackages  should  be  impressed,  in  such  a  way  that  it 
could  not  be  obscured  or  obliterated  without  manifest  effort  and  inten- 
tion, the  word  l Oleomargarine;7'7  and  that,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentle- 
men of  the  committee,  would  so  hedge  about  the  sale  of  colored 
oleomargarine  that  the  only  place  in  which  it  could  be  palmed  off  on  an 
unsuspecting  consumer  would  be  at  the  hotels.  It  would  practically 
be  driven  to  a  corner.  And  then  these  food  commissioners,  who  come 
here  in  the  interests  of  their  jobs,  or  perhaps  in  the  interest  of  their 
constituents  who  furnished  them  jobs,  would  only  have  to  go  to  the 
hotels;  and  how  many  hotels  could  stand  an  expose  of  that  kind  more 
than  once?  Why,  they  could  not  stand  it  at  all. 

Let  them  attach  penalties.  Let  them  fix  it  so  that  every  conviction 
will  add  to  the  revenues.  It  is  charged  by  the  friends  of  the  bill  that 
the  internal-revenue  people  will  not  enforce  this  act  because  it  does  not 
affect  their  revenues.  Let  them  attach  such  fines,  such  penalties,  as 
will  enable  them  to  get  wealthy,  so  that  every  other  revenue  can  be 
abolished,  if  need  be.  We  do  not  care.  We  want  it  sold  on  its  merits. 
Hedge  it  about  as  you  will,  but  do  not  say  to  the  poor  people,  u  You 
can  not  have  colored  butter" — for  it  is  butter— u  on  your  table,"  and  to 
the  rich  people,  "  You  can  have  yours  colored." 

It  is  just  as  bad  to  legislate  that  the  man  with  a  limited  income 
should  wear  a  certain  colored  suit  of  clothes,  while  the  rich  man  could 
wear  anything  he  pleased.  It  is  identically  the  same  proposition. 

Commissioner  Wilson  goes  on  to  say — and  he  ought  to  know — this: 

My  judgment  is  that  the  amount  of  this  material  that  is  sold  as  butter  is  not  nearly 
so  large  as  some  people  believe;  and  my  judgment  is  that  there  is  not  nearly  so 
much  viciousness  as  is  commonly  supposed  in  the  sale  of  that  which  is  not  marked. 
I  make  a  distinction,  in  other  words,  between  that  which  is  sold  as  butter  and  that 


OLEOMABGAKINE.  275 

which  is  handed  out  in  a  passive  way  without  its  being  indicated  whether  it  is  bat- 
ter or  oleomargarine.  I  do  not  think  there  is  as  much  of  that  which  is  actuated  by 
gain  as  has  been  represented  (p.  169). 

I  will  add  my  personal  testimony  to  that  later  on.     He  also  said 

(p.  170): 

There  has  never  been  any  evasion  of  the  law  with  respect  to  paying  the  tax  on 
oleomargarine,  except  in  a  very  incidental  and  limited  way.  Neither  the  special 
tax  (although  it  is  high),  nor  the  2-cent  pound  tax  have  ever  been  evaded.  We 
have  no  trouble  in  collecting  them. 

And  before  leaving  Cincinnati  I  asked  the  Hon.  Bernard  Bettinan, 
collector  of  internal  revenue  there,  if  he  cared  to  be  quoted,  or  would 
allow  himself  to  be  quoted,  on  that  subject;  and  if  so,  what  he  had  to 
say.  He  said:  " They  give  me  no  trouble  at  all." 

Then  Commissioner  Wilson  goes  on  to  speak  as  to  the  necessary 
absolute  purity  of  the  article,  because  the  materials  must  be  used  at 
once,  and  he  quotes  from  some  one  whom  he  considers  good  authority. 

Then  Representative  Allen  asked  him  (p.  171):  "Now,  sir,  have  any 
complaints  been  made  to  your  Department  of  any  deleterious  or  injuri- 
ous effects  caused  by  the  consumption  of  this  article?"  To  that  ques- 
tion Commissioner  Wilson  answered:  "No,  sir;  no,  sir.  The  only 
complaint  that  has  ever  reached  the  office  was  a  letter  that  Mr.Tawney 
published  here,  in  the  Star,  I  think — at  least,  it  was  the  same  letter 
that  he  read  to  me.  I  took  a  copy  of  it  and  sent  it  to  the  agent  in 
charge  of  the  territory  where  most  of  these  oils  «re  produced,  and  had 
a  very  complete  and  thorough  investigation  made,  and  have  here  a  copy 
of  his  report. 

Representative  ALLEN.  That  is  a  copy  of  the  report  ? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  A  copy  of  the  report  of  the  agent;  yes,  sir.  He  does 
not  find  any  ground  whatever  for  the  charge  made  in  that  letter.  He  says  it  is  false 
and  utterly  unworthy  of  belief;  and  he  shows  pretty  conclusively,  I  think,  that  his 
statements  are  true.  And  without  his  knowing  anything  about  the  doctrine  laid 
down  here,  in  this  investigation  to  which  I  have  referred,  he  brings  out  in  this  same 
report  the  fact  that  the  same  condition  of  things  exists. 

There  is  an  extensive  report.     I  wish  you  would  read  it. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Is  that  the  report  of  the  House  committee? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes;  it  is  in  the  report  of  the  House  committee. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Just  give  us  a  reference  to  the  page. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is  on  page  171.  I  am  not  going  to  read  the  report, 
but  I  am  going  to  call  attention  to  one  part  of  it,  to  use  later  on.  This 
man  was  unable  to  locate  the  writer  of  the  letter.  It  seems  that  they, 
like  some  of  the  food  commissioners,  pay  attention  to  every  letter  that 
they  receive,  anonymous  or  otherwise,  and  they  act  upon  them.  But 
the  report  further  says  (p.  175) : 

However,  it  is  the  general  impression  among  nearly  all  of  the  packers,  as  well  as 
the  oleomargarine  manufacturers,  that  the  author  of  the  published  letter  is  Charles  Y. 
Knight,  manager  Chicago  Dairy  Produce,  a  publication  published  in  the  interest  of 
dairy  products,  188  South  Water  street,  Chicago. 

(Mr.  Knight  arose. } 

Mr.  SCHELL.  You  will  have  your  turn  later  on. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  insist,  Mr.  Chairman 

Mr.  SCHELL.  1  am  keeping  within  the  record. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  insist  that  if  my  name  is  mentioned  I  should  have  a 
right  here  to  enter  the  record  and  make  a  protest. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No;  your  side  lias  reserved  the  right  to  close. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  the  man  referred  to? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  am  the  man  whom  he  accuses.  I  can  bring  a  man 
within  fifteen  minutes  who  knows  the  writer  of  that  letter  personally, 


276  OLEOMARGARINE. 

and  will  substantiate  what  he  says.  I  will  bring  him  from  the  Public 
Printing  Office.  He  is  a  man  of  whom  I  never  heard. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  have  no  controversy;  but  Mr. 
Knight  disclaims  the  responsibility  for  the  letter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  He  will  be  vouched  for  by  Eepresentative  Cooper,  of 
Wisconsin,  who  got  him  the  position  there,  and  who  vouches  for  this 
man  Loebbler,  and  can  tell  Mr.  Cowan  or  Inspector  McGiunis  where  he 
will  find  him  and  what  his  position  is.  And  he  will  also  give  this  com- 
mittee, if  it  desires  it,  some  information  which  will  substantiate  what 
this  man  wrote. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Where  do  you  find  that  letter  here? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  letter  is  not  shown  here.  The  report  on  the  letter 
is  given  at  page  171. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  further  give  the  name  of  the  man  .that  I  will 
bring.  His  name  is  Eeed.  He  is  foreman  of  a  department  at  the  Pub- 
lic Printing  Office. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  On  that  subject  I  want,  before  I  go  any  further,  to  say 
that  I  am  going  to  stick  to  the  record;  I  am  not  going  outside  of  the 
record. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  All  right,  sir. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  And,  as  I  understand,  these  gentlemen  claim  the  right 
to  close. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  They  have  not  presented  their  case,  but  they  want  to 
close. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  chairman  permitted  Mr.  Knight  to 
speak  simply  because  I  understood  he  had  been  charged  with  the 
authorship  of  a  letter  which  he  denied  writing. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  1  am  willing  that  he  should  go  on  record  now  as  deny- 
ing it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  the  gentleman  will  proceed  without 
interruption. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  all  right.  Commissioner  WTilson  goes  on  further 
and  says,  on  page  177 :  ll  I  think  everybody  buys  it.  I  think  it  is  clean 
and  reputable" — referring  to  oleomargarine.  Representative  Allen 
asked:  uDo  you  regard  its  manufacture  as  a  fixed  industry  in  the  coun- 
try, which  ought  not  to  be  abolished ! 

"Commissioner  Wilson.  Yes,  sir;  I  certainly  do;  and,  if  I  may  ven. 
ture  this  statement  (you  will  pardon  me  if  I  go  beyond  what  I  should 
say),  I  will  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  any  legislation  which  you  may 
enact  here  with  respect  to  stamping  or  identifying  as  an  entity  the 
quantity  of  eleomargarine  that  goes  into  the  hands  of  A,  B,  or  C  to  be 
used  on  their  tables  will  give  it  a  badge  of  credibility  that  it  would  not 
get  anywhere  else." 

That  is  his  opinion.  Speaking  of  the  factories,  he  says:  "They  are 
wonderfully  cleanly  conducted  affairs."  Then  he  touches  on  the  ques- 
tion of  revenue— showing  an  income  of  a  million  and  a  half  per  year. 
On  that  point,  I  believe,  there  is  no  doubt. 

Then  I  want  to  call  attention  to  just  one  statement  of  Professor 
Wiley;  and  as  to  the  other  testimony,  I  will  simply  refer  to  it  for  proof, 
if  wanted,  that  the  millions  of  individuals  and  investments  are  actually 
opposed  to  the  passage  of  this  bill. 

Professor  Wiley  condemns  anything  being  sold  for  otherwise  than 
what  it  is,  and  he  wants  it  so  that  the  purchaser  may  know  what  it  is. 
That  is  right.  Then  he  says  (p.  196) : 

And  that  is  the  attitude  that  I  hold  toward  pure-food  legislation — that  it  should 
be  general  and  not  special  in  its  character.  T  Relieve  that  the  dairy  interests  would 


OLEOMARGARINE.  277 

be  far  better  protected  under  the  Brosius  bill,  wliicb  is  pending  before  Congress, 
than  under  a  special  bill,  because  all  tbe  interests  would  be  placed  on  the  same  foot- 
ing. The  Brosius  bill  absolutely  prohibits  the  sale  of  any  product  as  an  imitation 
or  under  the  name  of  another,  and  provides  penalties  for  that  specific  purpose;  so 
that  it  would  be  absolutely  impossible  under  the  law,  if  that  bill  were  passed,  to  sell 
oleomargarine  for  butter  anywhere  in  this  country. 

Now,  I  have  not  seen  that  bill,  but  I  have  heard  of  it  from  time  to 
time.  It  is  backed  by  all  the  pure-food  congresses  and  commissioners 
and  everybody  else,  I  think,  in  any  way  interested  in  the  absolute 
purity  of  all  that  goes  on  our  tables.  I  do  not  know  what  the  bill  is; 
but  if  such  a  bill  could  be  conceived  it  would  have  the  support  of  every 
oleomargarine  manufacturer  in  the  country,  and,  I  think,  of  every  labor 
organization,  of  every  farmer,  and  of  everybody  who  eats.  And  most 
of  us  subsist  largely  on  what  we  eat. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  If  the  gentleman  permit  me  to  correct  a  statement,  which 
he  undoubtedly  made  in  good  faith,  I  will  say  that  he  is  mistaken  in 
saying  that  that  bill  is  supported  by  all  the  dairy  commissioners  in  the 
States.  While  they  concede  certain  merits  in  the  bill  the  dairy  com- 
missioners of  this  country,  as  a  rule,  are  not  in  favor  of  that  law,  as  at 
present  informed,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  extends. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  To  what  do  you  refer? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  Brosius  bill,  the  national  pure-food  law. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  You  say  the  dairy  commissioners  are  not  in  favor 
of  it? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  They  are  not  in  favor  of  the  bill  in  its  present  form. 
They  are  in  favor  of  some  of  the  essential  principles  of  the  bill,  but  not 
as  worked  out  in  that  particular  act. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  have  read  that  bill,  and  I  have  heard  of  it.  It 
is  universal,  of  course,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  It  would  also  compel  dairy  products  to  be  labeled 
as  to  coloring  matter  and  everything  else? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Well,  that  depends  upon  the  interpretion  of  the  general 
principles  laid  down  in  the  law.  They  do  not  object  to  that  part  of  it 
at  all. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Whatever  it  is,  such  a  law  should  be  enacted  and 
should  be  enforced.  We>  have  a  splendid  law  in  the  State  of  Ohio 
which  would  be  well  to  incorporate  into  some  national  law. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  main  difficulty  in  that  matter 
is  to  frame  a  law  which  would  be  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress  on 
the  subject. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Exactly,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  was  going  to  touch  on  that 
later  on,  when  I  came  to  discuss  the  bill.  Then  I  want  to  call  special 
attention  to  the  statement  of  Professor  Wiley  at  page  228  of  his  testi- 
mony, in  which  he  distinguished  between  th.e  chances  of  contagion  or 
chances  of  danger  in  the  two  rival  products,  if  they  are  rival  products — 
oleomargarine  and  butter.  He  discriminates  in  favor  of  oleomargarine 
as  containing  the  least  danger  to  the  public  health. 

So  much,  gentlemen,  in  a  general  way,  for  the  enemies  of  the  bill,  for 
those  who  are  opposing  this  legislation. 

Now  as  to  the  friends  of  the  bill.  I  can  not  give  them  the  attention 
I  would  like.  I  will  try  to  be  very  brief  and  I  will  try  to  keep  within 
the  record. 

They  rest  on  alleged  numbers.  They  say,  "  We,  the  people — we, 
the  dairymen,  want  it  as  a  remedy  for  (imaginary)  injuries."  They 
have  neither  proven  their  numbers  or  their  injuries. 

Their  argument  is  to  abuse  oleomargarine,  every  one  connected  with 
its  manufacture  or  sale,  and  branch  out  to  judges,  juries?  revenue  ofjti- 


278  OLEOMARGARINE. 

cers,  pure-food  commissioners,  chemists,  and  so  forth  ad  infinitum. 
They  remind  me  of  the  story  of  the  old  Scotch  woman,  who  was  dwell- 
ing on  the  wickedness  of  the  world.  Her  minister  said :  "Well,  if  what 
you  say  is  correct,  nobody  is  sure  of  heaven  but  you  and  John."  "Oh, 
well,"  said  she,  u  I  am  nae  so  sure  about  John."  ( Laughter.) 

They  submitted  their  pretended  case  briefly  and  announced  that  they 
were  through.  The  record  shows  it.  But  they  have  taken  most  of  the 
time  allotted  to  us  and  half  the  time  of  our  speakers,  either  in  actual 
talking  or  in  diverting  the  speaker  from  his  course  of  thought,  as  a 
result  of  which  he  has  necessarily  to  repeat  himself — except  Mr.  Gard- 
ner, who  spoke  before  they  recovered  from  their  surprise  that  we  were 
to  be  allowed  to  be  heard  at  all;  and  Mr.  Pirrung,  who  would  not  per- 
mit of  interruption.  And  later,  after  their  case  had  been  submitted, 
as  we  supposed,  they  claimed  the  right  to  close. 

We  do  not  object  to  that.  But  we  do  not  want  to  impose  on  the 
committee.  Xor  do  we  want  to  help  the  other  side.  They  are  certainly 
entitled  to  rebut — not  to  make  their  case  later  on,  but  to  rebut  any 
testimony  which  we  have  offered.  And  we  claim  the  right  then  to 
rebut  any  new  testimony  which  they  offer.  And  I  know,  from  the 
fairness  heretofore  displayed  by  this  committee,  that  we  will  have  it. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Has  the  gentleman  any  record  of  any  claim  made  by  the 
friends  of  this  bill  that  they  should  close  the  thing? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Oh,  yes;  it  is  in  the  record.  Then  again,  they  are 
really  entitled  to  close,  but  not  to  make  their  case  in  the  closing 
presentation. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  have  not  heard  of  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  There  comes  a  moment,  of  course,  when 
this  reciprocity  of  winding  things  up  must  cease. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Certainly,  certainly.  The  late  lamented  Edgar  W. 
Nye  once  said:  u  Some  people  want  the  earth.  Others  are  content 
with  the  fullness  thereof."  These  gentlemen  seem  to  want  both  the,  earth 
and  the  fullness  thereof.  I  want  to  briefly  mention  the  prominent 
friends  of  the  bill,  beginning  with  Governor  Hoard.  I  would  rather 
that  the  gentlemen  would  be  present 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Had  you  not  better  confine  yourself  to  the  sub- 
ject itself?  We  will  hear  from  these  men  after  a  while.  I  think  you 
are  mistaken  about  their  reserving  the  right  of  closing.  They  may  have 
said  that  they  reserved  it  and  it  may  have  been  granted.  Of  course 
we  have  changed  chairman  quite  often  and  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee, as  they  have  attended,  have  varied  from  two  to  four  and  six. 
We  have  not  had  time  to  be  present  continuously  and  we  may  be  mixed 
on  this  subject.  You  say  that  this  is  in  the  record.  I  do  not  know, 
but  I  think  you  had  better  confine  yourself  to  the  subject  itself,  so  that 
we  will  get  through  sometime. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  right.  I  want  to  confine  myself  to  the  subject 
itself,  and  if  it  please  the  committee,  I  will  aim  to  keep  strictly  within 
the  record.  But  we  have  been  attacked.  There  have  been  claims 
made.  We  will  not  say  that  we  will  analyze  Governor  Hoard.  That 
is  not  the  intention,  but  we  will  analyze  his  statements. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  The  committee  is  able  to  judge  of  these  matters. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  But  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  the  weak 
points  in  his  claim,  which  is  submitted  here  as  a  part  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  case — the  statements  that  were  made  by  him  and  others 
before  the  House  Committee.  I  will  be  very  brief. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  gentleman  will  proceed,  abstaining  as 
far  as  possible  from  any  controversial  personalities. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  279 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Oh,  yes — certainly,  certainly.  E  want  to  say  that  I 
will  sit  quietly  through  anything  which  may  be  s;ud  in  reply  to  what- 
ever I  may  say,  and  I  will  try  not  to  transcend  the  bounds 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  wish  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  behalf  of  these  gentle- 
men who  are  to  be  subjected  to  analysis,  that  we  have  not  the  slightest 
objection  to  it  and  are  quite  curious  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Only.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  say  that  I  have  been 
accused  of  forgery  in  this  committee  and— 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  have  not  accused  you  of  it. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  You  certainly  did.  You  certainly  said  that  it  was  the 
general  opinion  that  I  wrote  the  letter  to  which  the  name  of  a  man 
named  Loebbler  was  signed. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No;  J  simply  quoted  from  the  record,  and  never  heard 
the  name  Loebbler  till  you  just  now  used  it.  I  do  not  vouch  for  any 
statement  that  appears  in  this  record  produced  by  one  side  or  the 
other;  but  it  is  before  the  committee,  was  introduced  by  your  side,  and 
we  want  to  talk  nbout  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Was  that  in  the  record  of  the  House  that  I  was  accused 
of  that? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  was  in  the  record  of  the  House.  You  will  find  it  on 
the  page  1  mentioned.  Now,  I  hope  my  time  will  not  be  too  limited, 
but  I  want  to  get  ahead. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  see  the  necessity  of  not  accusing 
people  of  this,  that,  or  the  other. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  can,  but  a  greater  necessity  exists  for  going  fully  into 
what  appears  in  the  record. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Otherwise  we  will  have  that  much  more  to 
go  into. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  right. 

Now,  Governor  Hoard,  as  appears  by  the  record  (Senate  Committee 
Hearing,  p.  34),  was  artificially  coloring  cheese  forty-five  years  ago  in 
New  York. 

He  is  president  of  the  National  Dairy  Union,  serving  without  money 
and  without  price.  He  does  not  say  that  he  is  serving  here  for  noth- 
ing, but  leaves  that  impression.  He  is  not  so  adroit  with  the  5,000,000 
farmers  whom  he  claims  to  represent  as  his  colaborer,  Mr.  Knight.  If 
he  could  only  get  50  cents  apiece  for  the  same  proportion  and  $1,000 
apiece  for  the  balance,  he  would  not  need  to  longer  deny  the  farmers  of 
his  district  an  interest  in  his  ten  creameries,  as  suggested  last  Friday 
by  Mr.  Lestrade. 

But  to  turn  to  the  testimony,  he  begins: 

"Whom  do  we  represent?  The  united  dairy  sentiment  of  the  nation. 
That  means  over  5,000,000  farmers,  and  an  annual  cash  value  in  their 
product  of  over  $600,000,000." 

That  is  produced  as  an  argument.  I  would  not  produce  such  an 
argument  before  this  committee.  It  is  not  an  argument.  It  is  simply 
a  statement  to  the  effect,  "Here  we  are,  with  these  numbers  back  of  us; 
and  you  must  do  as  we  say." 

By  what  authority  does  he  represent  these  people?  He  has  not 
shown  it.  He  has  not  proven  it. 

Then  he  goes  on  to  say,  also : 

A  vast  army  of  consumers  of  dairy  products  who  are  constantly  duped  and  swin- 
dled by  a  counterfeit  substitute  for  butter. 

He  has  not  proven  that.  These  gentlemen  who  are  here  to  day  as 
consumers  deny  it.  One  factory  [  represent  sells  direct  to  more  than 
one  thousand  consumers.  One  of  the  Providence  manufacturers  told 


280  OLEOMARGARINE. 

your  committee  that  three-fourths  of  his  product  went  direct  to  the 
consumer. 

The  consumer  is  defrauded  of  his  money  and  the  dairy  farmer  of  his  rightful  mar- 
ket, the  first  being  compelled  to  pay  a  butter  price  for  that  which  is  not  butter. 

The  testimony  is  to  the  effect  that  the  farmer  still  lias  his  market  for 
butter;  it  is  everywhere  increasing  in  price,  and  milk  has  gone  up  in 
price.  That  all  appears  in  the  record.  And  as  to  the  consumer  being 
defrauded,  we  have  some  testimony  on  that  subject,  but  tbe  reverse  of 
the  claim;  and  I  want  to  add  my  individual  testimony  very  shortly. 
He  goes  on— 

The  oleomargarine  combine  consists  of  less  than  20  manufacturers,  who  have 
entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  break  down  these  State  laws. 

I  will  say  that  there  are  not  any  more  bitter  competitors  in  any  busi- 
ness in  the  world  than  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  of  this  coun- 
try. I  represent  part  of  them,  and  I  know  how  they  are  fighting 
among  themselves,  and  how  they  are  doing  business  at  a  bare  living 
profit. 

He  says,  "  Who  have  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  break  down  these 
State  laws,  and,  by  bribing  merchants" — they  have  not  shown  it — "by 
deception  of  all  kinds" — they  have  not  shown  it — "by  subsidizing  city 
newspapers" — they  have  not  proven  it — "by  employing  leading  politi- 
cians"— we  do  not  know  of  one.  We  have  not  shipped  any  masters  of 
State  granges  here.  We  have  not  sent  any  telegrams,  to  my  knowl- 
edge, except  one  that  came  to  Senator  Foraker  asking  that  he  delay 
the  hearing  until  I  could  get  here — "to  so  neutralize  the  effect  and 
administration  of  those  laws  that  they  may  force  their  counterfeit  upon 
the  public."  We  have  shown  that  we  are  not  forcing  a  counterfeit 
upon  the  public. 

These  manufacturers  are  assuming  to  override  all  law.  They  stand  behind  all 
infractions  of  State  and  national  laws,  and  furnish  money  for  the  defense  of  th<  ir 
agents  when  arrested. 

That  has  not  been  shown. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.    Is  it  so? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is  not  so.  I  can  answer  for  three  factories.  It  is 
not  the  fact. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  May  I  ask  a  question  right  here? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No;  because  my  time  is  limited.  You  can  answer  this 
argument.  That  right  has  been  reserved, 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  wanted  to  ask  what  your  business  was. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  know;  but  you  break  up  the  continuity  of  my  state- 
ment. He  continues: 

"On  one  side  stands  one  of  the  greatest  of  our  agricultural  interests, 
together  with  the  millions  of  consumers" — millions  again;  numbers, 
not  arguments — "  who  are  tired  of  being  swindled."  They  have  not  so 
testified.  I  have  not  heard  the  testimony  of  one.  I  do  not  think  it 
appears  in  the  record. 

"On  the  other  side  stands  the  oleomargarine  trust"— there  is  no 
trust.  If  there  is,  we  are  not  in  it — "  engaged  in  manufacturing  a  coun- 
terfeit,"— we  are  manufacturing  butter  by  a  different  process — "depend- 
ing on  lawbreaking,  falsehood,  and  deception  for  its  success,  backed 
up  with  millions  of  capital." 

They  have  not  shown  where  the  millions  of  capital  come  in.  On  the 
contrary,  later  on  they  speak  of  the  combined  rating  of  the  two  firms 


OLEOMARGARINE.  281 

who  put  out  full  v one- third  of  the  product,  being,  according  to  Dun,  only 
$400,000.     Then  they  go  on : 

The  dairy  sentiment  of  the  county  would  be  willing  that  the  uncolored  compound 
should  be  relieved  of  all  taxation.  The  tax  as  provided  in  the  bill,  however,  is 
trifling  and  nominal.  This  is  done  in  the  spirit  of  fairness. 

It  is  done  as  the  grossest  kind  of  unfairness.     He  then  goes  on: 

To  give  added  force  to  the  first  section  of  this  bill,  it  is  also  provided  in  the  second 
section  that  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  shall  be  imposed  on  all  oleomargarine  in  the 
color  or  semblance  of  butter.  In  plain  words,  this  is  repressive  taxation. 

That  is  the  nearest  we  have  been  able  to  get  them  on  record.  1  want 
it  remembered,  and  want  to  comment  on  it  later  on ;  but  I  must  pass 
the  larger  part  of  this.  He  goes  on  to  say: 

It  has  been  found,  through  the  inefficient  administration  of  State  laws  and  the 
powerful  influence  of  this  oleomargarine  combination,  that  this  protection  is  insuf- 
ficient. 

The  only  testimony  we  have  here  is  from  the  States  of  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio.  The  New  York  laws  are  in  force.  The  Ohio 
laws  regarding  fraudulent  sales  are  enforced.  The  Pennsylvania  laws 
were  allowed  to  run  riot,  but  now  they  have  them  in  hand.  As  soon 
as  they  took  charge  they  enacted  a  law,  a  necessarily  unpopular  law, 
and  put  in  a  commissioner,  and  expected  him  to  enforce  that  law  over 
the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  for  $12,500  a  year!  Mr.  Sharpless 
does  not  think  that  Mr.  Hamilton  tries.  I  do  not  know  Mr.  Hamilton, 
but  I  have  no  doubt  he  does  the  best  he  can  with  the  amount  of  money 
at  his  disposal.  But  when  they  get  together  and  contribute,  and  pay 
an  attorney,  and  go  after  the  frauds,  the  laws  are  capable  of  enforce- 
ment. According  to  the  testimony,  they  have  reduced  the  licenses 
from  some  500  down  to  32,  I  think,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  This 
shows  that  they  are  capable  of  enforcement. 

The  hoped-for  effect  of  the  legislation  asked  of  Congress  is  not  to  destroy  the 
oleomargarine  industry,  but  to  force  it  over  onto  its  own  ground;  to  compel  "it  to 
be  made  in  its  own  guise  and  color.  Is  there  anything  unjust  or  unreasonable  about 
this? 

There  is  nothing  unreasonable  about  a  law  to  force  it  onto  its  own 
ground.  The  factories  to  a  unit  will  help  to  enforce  any  such  law.  I 
want  to  speak  of  the  attitude  of  the  factories  on  that  point  later  on. 
But  to  try  and  get  one  of  the  main  advocates  of  this  bill  where  the 
committee  will  know  where  he  stands,  and  so  we  may  know  where  he 
stands  and  what  he  wants — whether  to  tax  us  out  of  existence  or 
merely  to  confine  us  within  our  proper  limits — is  a  thing  that  I  have 
not  been  able  to  do.  He  goes  on : 

tax  one 
would 

answer  "No."     The  oleomargarine  business  is  not  conducted  legitimately.     It  is 
based,  from  manufacture  to  sale,  on  wrong  and  illegitimate  methods. 

They  have  not  proven  it.  They  concede  that  the  manufacturer  com- 
plies with  the  law  now.  It  is  only  the  retailer;  and  the  manufacturer 
will  help  to  compel  the  retailer  to  sell  his  product  for  what  it  is. 

Mr.  Hoard  refers  to  the  unhealthful  part.  That  is  a  matter  too  plain 
for  discussion.  He  then  says  (p.  4) : 

The  whole  proposition  is  in  a  nut  shell.  Force  out  the  color  or  semblance  to  but- 
ter and  you  put  a  stop  to  its  being  imposed  on  the  consumer  for  butter. 

He  evidently  means  to  force  out  the  manufacture  of  colored  oleo,  no 
matter  how  badly  the  people  want  it, 


We  are  met  by  certain  abstractionists  with  the  question,  "Would  you  t{ 
legitimate  industry  out  of  existence  for  the  benefit  of  another?"     To  this  I 


282  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Bight  there  I  would  suggest  that  if  no  other  privilege  is  granted  us, 
we  would  like  to  have  the  ability  to  make  colored  goods  to  the  order 
of  the  consumer.  He  does  not  grant  that. 

Now,  we  quote  from  his  statements  before  the  Senate  committee. 
He  says: 

I  will  only  add  that  the  bill  is  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  counterfeiting  of 
food,  so  far  as  the  constitutional  power  of  the  Federal  Government  can  go. 

Now,  the  main  point.     He  says  to  you,  gentlemen : 

The  Federal  Government  is  limited  in  its  constitutional  power.  It  has  no  right 
to  enact  prohibition. 

If  this  is  prohibition,  and  is  so  shown  to  the  committee,  Governor 
Hoard  says  you  have  no  right  to  enact  it.  "It  has  no  police  power." 
If  it  is  police  power,  you  have  no  right  to  enact  this  law. 

Those  things  you  are  as  well  aware  of  as  I  am,  but  it  has  taken  ground  upon  cer- 
tain lines,  like  the  taxation  of  State  banks  in  the  interest  of  a  sound  currency,  etc. 

And  he  brings  in  his  "  great  army"  again.  He  alleges  that  the  color 
ing  of  butter  is  not  a  vehicle  of  deception.  And  Senator  Allen,  at 
page  12,  asks  him  the  question : 

Why  does  the  prudent  farmer  ordinarily  in  June  endeavor  to  put  down  enough 
butter  to  carry  him  through  the  winter  tor  his  own  use? 

Mr.  HOARD.  Senator,  that  is  not  done  at  the  present  time  to  any  appreciable 
extent. 

Senator  ALLEN.  It  has  been  done  ever  since  I  was  a  boy. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  may  have  been  done  when  you  were  a  boy  and  when  I  was  a  boy. 
As  to  that  you  are  right,  but  at  the  present  time  the  whole  system  of  butter  making 
is  changed. 

That  is  what  we  claim. 

Not  one  man  puts  down  butter  in  June  for  the  next  winter  where  10,000  did  it 
forty  years  ago.  This  wonderful  change  has  come  through  the  organization  of 
creameries,  where  now  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  best  butter  is  made. 

We  also  claim  it  comes  through  the  organization  of  creameries,  as 
we  aimed  to  show,  and  not  through  any  competitive  work  of  the  oleo- 
margarine interests. 

The  next  witness  is  Mr.  Charles  Y.  Knight,  who  was  the  main  wit- 
ness before  the  House.  And  I  want  to  disclaim  in  the  start  any  per- 
sonal attack  on  Mr.  Knight.  I  am  only  attacking  his  argument.  An 
argument  can  not  be  proven  bad  by  proving  the  man  who  made  it  is 
bad,  and  the  man  is  not  necessarily  bad  because  it  is  a  bad  argument. 
But  we  must  look  at  motives  and  the  inducements  to  get  on  the  wrong 
side.  I  think  Mr.  Knight  is  honest,  but  mistaken. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  He  began,  according  to  the  record  before  the  House, 
fourteen  years  ago;  according  to  his  statement  this  morning,  twenty 
years  ago.  It  seems  he  can  not  quit.  He  can  not  realize  the  changed 
conditions.  We  might  say  it  is  due  to  his  phrenological  construction. 
We  admire  a  man  who  sticks  to  a  proposition.  He  starts  after  a  thing 
and  can  not  stop  until  be  gets  it,  even  if  it  is  no  longer  desirable.  And 
this  is  not  desirable  now,  as  we  will  show  later  on.  But  then,  he  repre- 
sents the  farmers ;  and  he  is  better  off,  a  better  manager,  than  Governor 
Hoard,  because  from  24,600  farmers  he  has  been  able  to  collect  50  cents 
apiece,  and  from  some  of  the  balance  of  his  30,000,  as  he  states  in  his 
testimony  (p.  62,  House  Com.),  some  of  whom  might  have  contributed 
as  high  as  $1,000.  He  was  probably  paid  in  advance,  and  he  must 
earn  his  money.  The  only  trouble  is  that  he  is  working  them — no 
working  for  them — too  much  for  that  amount. 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  283 

Now,  to  take  his  statement,  lie  begins: 

My  business  is  that  of  editor  of  the  Chicago  Dairy  Produce,  a  publication  devoted 
to  the  dairy  and  butter  business.  I  have  for  the  past  three  years  been  secretary  of 
the  National  Dairy  Union,  an  organization  of  farmers  who  keep  cows,  and  others 
engaged  in  pursuits  allied  therewith.  This  organization  at  present  comprises  about 
30,000  members  who  are  farmers,  and  they  are  scattered  all  over  the  United  States. 

Now,  I  do  not  know  whether  he  is  representing  the  same  farmers 
Governor  Hoard  represents  or  not;  they  are  officers  of  the  same  organ- 
ization; but  it' he  is,  they  have  diminished  on  the  same  scale  as  did  the 
subject  matter  of  the  story  of  the  boy  who  came  in  at  night  frightened 
and  told  his  father  that  there  were  100  cats  lighting  under  the  barn. 
That  number  was  questioned,  reduced  to  "50,  anyway;"  then  to  25; 
then  to  10;  and  it  kept  on  until  they  got  down  to  "our  old  tomcat  and 
another  one."  And  these  five  millions  of  people  who  are  represented 
by  Governor  Hoard,  according  to  his  statement,  appear  to  have  dwin- 
dled at  about  the  same  ratio. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  was  almost  a  year  ago,  Mr.  Schell. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  March  7,  1900,  is  the  only  date  we  have  here.  And 
when  you  call  for  another  contribution  you  will  find  the  rest  have  faded 
away. 

Then  on  the  next  page  he  states: 

1  have  had  charge  of  the  work  of  organization  and  the  collection  of  facts  regard- 
ing the  oleomargarine  traffic  of  this  country,  and  it  is  the  enormous  illegal  and 
fraudulent  growth  of  the  business  during  the  past  few  years,  in  face  of  the  best 
restrictive  laws  the  States  have  been  able  to  devise,  that  has  brought  us  to  Congress 
as  a  last  resort  to  ask  for  relief. 

It  was  two  years  in  that  case;  immediately  after,  fourteen.  He 
says: 

For  the  information  of  the  committee,  all  of  the  members  of  which  may  not  be 
familiar  with  the  history  of  national  legislation  along  this  line,  I  will  state  that 
fourteen  years  ago,  finding  the  powers  of  the  State  lielpless  to  cope  against  the 
peculiar  character  of  this  fraud,  the  dairymen  of  this  country  arose  en  masse  and 
came  to  Congress  for  relief,  feeling  that  nothing  but  Congressional  action  would 
save  their  business  from  absolute  ruin. 

And  yet,  in  spite  of  all,  and  in  spite  of  fate,  the  dairy  interests  have 
been  increasing  in  value  all  over  the  country,  and  the  extent  of  it 
appears  somewhere  in  the  record.  I  will  not  attempt  to  quote  it,  as  I 
want  to  be  absolutely  accurate. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  got  what  they  called  for  then? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No;  they  called  for  a  10-cent  per  pound  tax  then,  and 
they  did  not  get  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  We  got  part  of  it. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  to  quote  Mr.  Knight*  again,  I  want  particular 
attention  paid  to  this  (p.  6,  House  Com.): 

The  matter  of  legislating  against  a  counterfeit  article,  however,  was  found  to  be 
a  complex  proposition  for  Congress,  because  of  the  constitutional  restrictions  which 
prevent  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  exercising  police  powers  except  for  the 
protection  of  its  revenue  receipts,  interstate  commerce,  and  other  matters  abso- 
lutely within  the  limits  of  the  Constitution;  and  after  months  of  tedious  investiga- 
tion and  effort  what  is  known  as  the  Hatch  bill  was  finally  originated  by  the 
Committee  on  Agriculture  and  brought  into  the  House. 

They  concede  the  limitation  of  the  police  regulations. 

To  pass  on  rapidly :  At  page  10  he  quotes  the  Shollenberger  case  as 
sustaining  the  Plumley  case. 

In  the  Senate  hearing,  at  page  4,  he  advises  General  Grout  that  the 
cases  conflict. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  mean  that  I  advised  General  Grout  that  the 
Sholleuberger  and  Plumley  cases  conflicted! 


284  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  SC^HELL.  Someone  will  kindly  look  at  page  4  of  the  hearing 
here  before  the  committee. 
Now,  he  says  further  (p.  10) : 

All  that  we  ask  is  that  the  people  be  protected  in  the  right  to  choose  between 
the  two  articles. 

We  agree  to  that,  to  a  man.  We  want  the  same  thing.  We  want 
to  have  the  right  to  choose  between  the  two  articles.  But  does  he 
mean  it?  The  evidence  is  conflicting  on  that  point. 

He  goes  on  to  say : 

We  have  not  appealed  to  Congress  for  aid  along  the  line  of  discouraging  the  sale 
of  oleomargarine  made  in  semblance  of  butter,  until  the  matter  of  accomplishing 
the  same  result  through  State  legislation  has  been  thoroughly  tested  and  proven  a 
failure. 

The  evidence  is  not  to  the  effect  that  it  has  proven  a  failure  where  it 
has  been  tested. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Schell,  will  you  permit  me  to  make  an  interruption? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  In  just  a  moment. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  wish  to  make  a  correction  in  the  record.  I  want  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  stenographer  made  a  mistake  in 
attributing  this  remark  to  me.  It  is  evidently  something  which  Mr. 
Flanders  said.  I  did  not  make  the  statement.  It  was  the  stenographer's 
error,  and  that  should  be  corrected  in  the  record. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  We  are  willing  that  that  should  be  done.  We  do  not 
want  to  misquote  anybody. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  While  you  are  right  there,  this  thought 
occurs  to  me :  Of  course,  I  think,  nobody  wants  to  destroy  this  industry. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  think  Congress  does  not. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  it  can  be  preserved  in  some  way  which 
will  do  justice  to  other  industries.  Is  there  not  some  point  where  you 
could  select  an  oleomargarine  color  which  would  be  agreeable  to  the 
taste  and  attractive  to  the  eye,  and  which  would  not  collide  with  this 
ancient  butter  color? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Why,  if  you  please;  we  will  select  and  will  adhere  to 
the  same  color  which  we  have  used  since  our  beginning. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  know,  but  that  happens  to  correspond 
with  the  color  of  butter.  It  is  identical  with  it. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  happened  to  correspond,  according  to  the  evidence 
and  the  fucts,with  the  color  ot  butter  adopted  by  the  creameries,  which 
came  into  existence  after  we  began  to  color  oleomargarine,  and  has 
since  been  adopted  by  the  dairies  and  the  farmers.  We  are  the  first 
in  the  field  with  a  unifonq  color;  and  if  they  will  stick  to  their  natural 
color,  there  will  be  no  danger  of  any  conflict. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  in  that  case  this  question  of  family 
pride,  which  was  referred  to  in  connection  with  these  families  in  Penn- 
sylvania, would  still  arise. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is  custom;  it  is  pride.  Pride  uover  gets  too  hot  or 
too  cold;  and  pride  affects  the  appetite  and  everything  else. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  if  butter  makers  should  uniformly  adopt 
the  artificial  color  of  white,  these  gentlemen  who  spoke  a  while  ago  would 
still  be  left  in  the  shabby  situation  of  buying  an  article  which  was  in 
some  disrepute  in  the  neighborhood  if  they  took  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  think  that  is  a  little  far  reaching;  but  if  they  should 
complain,  in  that  event  they  would  be  coirplaining  without  just  cause. 
And  unless  a  complaint  is  made  with  c.iuse,  it  ought  not  to  receive 
much  consideration, 


OLEOMARGARINE.  285 

,  Mr.  Knight  says  (p.  11) : 

We  have  not  appealed  to  Congress  for  aid  along  the  line  of  discouraging  the  sale 
of  oleomargarine  made  in  semblance  of  butter  until  the  matter  of  accomplishing  the 
same  result  through  State  legislation  has  been  thoroughly  tested  and  proven  a  fail- 
ure. And  this  fact  we  believe  to  be  our  strongest  argument  in  favor  of  Congressional 
action. 

If  that  is  the  strongest  argument  they  have,  it  is  entitled  to  a  little 
attention.  They  began  fourteen  years  ago.  According  to  the  synopsis 
of  the  State  laws,  the  majority,  almost  all,  of  the  color  laws  have  been 
in  existence  only  since  1896.  Some  of  them  date  back  to  as  early  as 
1888  and  1889,  but  the  majority  of  them  were  passed  about  five  years 
ago.  I  would  like  to  comment  further  on  this  point,  but  the  mere  men- 
tion of  the  facts  is  sufficient. 

Mr.  Knight  further  states:  "  As  far  back  as  1886,  when  this  matter 
first  came  before  Congress,  the  States  had  learned  of  the  impossibility 
ol  controlling  this  traffic  through  State  laws."  Fifteen  years7  experi- 
ence, and  the  testimony  here,  prove  that  the  traffic  can  be  controlled  by 
State  laws;  and  I  will  further  testify  on  that  subject  myself,  from  my 
personal  experience. 

Mr.  Knight  says  (p.  18) : 

For  a  few  years  these  laws  forbidding  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine  in  semblance 
of  butter  were  effective. 

I  do  not  know  just  what  he  refers  to,  but  if  they  can  be  enforced  part 
of  the  time,  they  can  be  enforced  all  the  time.  I  do  not  suppose,  how- 
ever, that  he  meant  the  present  laws,  because  they  could  not  be  referred 
to  in  those  terms.  They  are  too  recent. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  ask  you  about  these  State  laws. 
Is  there  a  State  law  in  Ohio  against  coloring  oleomargarine  to  corre- 
spond with  the  color  of  butter? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman ;  and  if  you  will  permit  me,  I  want 
to  take  up  that  matter  presently  in  detail.  I  am  trying  to  pass  these 
matters  as  rapidly  as  possible.  I  have  a  copy  of  the  laws  here,  and  I 
want  to  submit  them  They  are  model  laws,  except  that  they  are  par- 
tial to  the  farmer,  and  except  the  color  part.  Of  course  we  object  to 
the  color  clause. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  pro- 
hibited in  the  State  of  Ohio! 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is  prohibited  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  absolutely.  Both 
manufacture  and  sale. 

The  AOTiNGr  CHAIRMAN.  What  effect  on  the  traffic  in  the  local 
market  has  that  had,  as  far  as  your  Cincinnati  factories  are  concerned? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  effect  has  been  - 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  want  to  ascertain  how  far  this  abolition 
of  the  yellow-oleomargarine  color  would  tend  to  wipe  out  the  industry. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  give  you  the  statistics  on  that 
point;  but  I  will  tell  you  presently  just  the  effect  it  has  had  in  Cincin- 
nati, the  fights  that  have  been  made,  and  the  effects  or  results. 

Mr.  Knight  then  goes  on  (p.  19)  : 

The  ordinary  State's  attorney  can  not  cope  with  these  experienced  practitioners 
upon  this  subject,  as  a  rule;  and  never  is  money  spared  to  make  the  prosecution  as 
expensive  to  the  State  and  as  disagreeable  to  those  connected  therewith  as  possible. 
*  *  *  Upon  the  other  hand,  every  time  an  arrest  is  made,  the  fight  is  taken  up  by 
the  entire  oleomargarine  industry,  with  its  millions  of  money  and  enormous  influ- 
ence among  a  certain  class  of  politicians,  who  at  times  manage  to  reach  the  sacred 
ear  of  the  judge  who  presides  in  the  case. 


286  OLEOMARGARINE. 

No  practitioner  who  had  any  conscience,  any  self-respect,  any  pride 
in  his  profession,  would  attempt  to  reach  the  sacred  ear  of  the  judge, 
as  is  intimated  in  this  statement.  And  I  want  to  say  for  our  Cin- 
cinnati judges  and  juries  and  justices,  so  far  as  I  know,  that  while  I 
have  had  eases  decided  against  me,  I  have  always  felt  that  whether  I 
won  or  otherwise,  the  case  was  decided  by  the  judge  according  to  his 
very  best  efforts,  and  that  he  was  entirely  honest  in  every  particular. 
And.  that  has  been  my  experience  in  the  various  State  and  Federal 
courts  in  which  I  have  practiced  law.  As  to  our  using  every  honest 
effort,  we  have  a  right  to  do  it.  We  would  not  be  true  to  our  clients, 
we  would  not  be  true  to  our  profession,  if  we  did  not  do  our  best  within 
legitimate  bounds. 

Mr.  Knight  goes  on : 

The  prosecution  of  such  offenders  requires  the  very  highest  grade  of  talent ;  and 
their  conviction,  experience  and  a  statute  which  will  stand  the  onslaught  of  the 
most  resourceful  lawyers.  A  law  may  have  answered  for  years  in  regulating  other 
evils,  but,  when  contested  by  such  ability  as  is  employed  by  the  oleomargarine  mil- 
lions, might  be  picked  to  pieces  and  rendered  absolutely  worthless  through  the 
manipulations  and  researches  of  the  experienced  tricksters. 

The  experience  of  every  member  of  the  committee  and  every  other 
intelligent  man  has  gone  to  show  that  a  trickster  never  gets  very  high 
in  his  profession ;  and  a  trickster  is  not  a  man  who  is  competent  to  work 
havoc  with  all  these  statutes,  which  are  so  carefully  prepared. 

No  technicality  is  too  small  for  them  to  take  advantage  of  and  make  the  prosecu- 
tion the  expense  of  a  test  case  in  the  Supreme  Court. 

That  is  all  right.     We  are  entitled  to  that. 

I  will  omit  quite  a  good  deal  which  I  had  intended  to  quote.  But  lie 
says  further  on  (p.  45) : 

In  this  matter  the  people  of  the  States  have  expressed  themselves  by  a  four-fifths 
majority  as  being  opposed  to  the  existence  or  commerce  in  the  article  wo  seek,  if 
you  please,  to  discourage  by  taxation.  The  legislatures  of  thirty- two  leading  States 
have  declared  traffic  in  oleomargarine  colored  to  resemble  butter  to  be  a  menace  to 
the  individual  rights  and  welfare  of  their  people. 

Any  horse  can  win  a  race  when  there  is  only  one  entry ;  and,  so  far 
as  I  know,  there  has  been  no  effort  on  the  part  of  anyone  to  prevent 
the  passage  of  these  State  laws. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  why  has  the  trade  in  oleomargarine 
quietly  acquiesced  in  criminal  and  other  statutes  in  thirty-two  States, 
the  effect  of  which  would  be  to  totally  wipe  out  their  business,  if  in 
point  of  fact  such  statutes  would  have  that  effect? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr,  Chairman,  I  was  coming  to  that  matter  later,  but  I 
will  an  swer  you  now.  Contrary  to  the  evident  belief  of  these  gentlemen, 
every  man  is  presumed  to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proven  guilty;  and  in 
deciding  that  question  he  is  entitled  to  have  the  judgment  of  twelve  of 
his  fellow-men.  And  the  sentiment  against  this  class  of  legislation, 
"their  millions  of  people"  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  is  so  strong 
that  a  jury  will  not  convict  unless  a  very  clear  case  is  made. 

The  AcTiNGr  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  do  you  mean  to  say,  Mr.  Schell,  that 
the  oleomargarine  trade  has  relied  on  its  ability,  by  litigation,  to  defeat 
these  State  statutes,  and  for  that  reason  has  regarded  the  legislation 
of  the  States  as  unimportant1? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No ;  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that ;  and  in  speaking  as  I 
do  in  this  case,  I  do  not  want  to  appear  as  outlining  the  policy  of  any 
factory,  either  my  own  clients  or  others.  But  my  experience  has  been 
that  good  people  make  good  laws.  Good  laws,  however,  do  not  make 
good  people;  and  when  bad  people  pass  bad  laws,  the  fair-minded 


OLEOMARGARINE.  287 

merican  juror  rises  up  in  his  might  and  says,  "Gentlemen,  that  law 
will  not  be  enforced."  And  the  testimony  of  the  Ohio  commissioner  here 
the  other  day  (you  did  not  hear  it,  Mr.  Chairman)  was  to  the  effect  that 
he  had  practically  no  trouble  in  enforcing  the  law  which  provides  that 
oleomargarine  must  be  sold  for  what  it  is,  and  not  for  butter,  but  that 
he  did  have  trouble  in  convicting  on  his  color  laws. 

Now,  another  reason  is  that  if  the  oleomargarine  people  were  to 
attempt  to  combine  to  fight  these  laws  which  are  brought  up  from  time 
to  time  in  different  States,  they  would  have  to  increase  the  profits  of 
their  business  to  such  an  extent  that  the  price  of  oleomargarine  would 
be  raised  to  the  extent  that  it  would  no  longer  be  a  boon  to  the  labor- 
ing man.  They  also  would  be  compelled  to  array  class  against  class  to 
an  extent  that  would  disturb  the  harmony  of  the  nation. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  these  State  laws,  as  a  rule,  been 
declared  constitutional  by  the  supreme  courts  of  the  States  which  have 
enacted  them  ? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  decisions  are  conflicting.  I  have  not  the  statistics 
before  me,  but  I  know  in  a  general  way 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  to  ask  him  a  question1? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  have  this  question  answered 
first,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  My  recollection  is,  in  a  general  way,  that  some  of  them 
have  been  declared  constitutional,  and  some  unconstitutional.  Take 
the  State  of  Michigan,  for  instance.  There  the  law  has  been  declared 
invalid.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  held  in  the  Collins 
case  in  Vermont  that  the  pink  law  was  unconstitutional;  but  I  want  to 
make  just  a  brief  reference  to  that  later  on. 

Here  is  another  question  which  Mr.  Knight  asked  in  the  House 
hearing,  referring  to  our  general  scouudrelism,  etc.  He  does  not  put 
it  in  just  those  words;  but  he  says  (p.  46) : 

Can  a  member  of  Congress  afford  to  be  influenced  by  a  citizen  who  has  no  respect 
for  the  laws  of  his  State? 

Gentlemen,  we  do  not  ask  you  to  be  influenced  by  a  citizen.  This  is 
not  a  question  of  numbers;  it  is  not  a  question  of  the  moral  standing 
of  our  citizens,  or  what  we  want.  It  is  a  question  of  what  is  right.  If 
1  can  produce  an  argument  that  is  good,  no  matter  how  bad  I  am,  that 
argument  ought  to  have  its  effect. 

But,  to  pass  on  rapidly  : 

Both  Mr.  Knight'  and  Governor  Hoard  have  placed  themselves  on 
record  as  serving  in  their  respective  offices  without  compensation. 
They  do  not  say  what  they  are  getting  for  appearing  here;  but  it  is 
presumed  they  are  merely  acting  in  their  usual  capacity.  Mr.  Knight 
speaks  of  having  collected  50  cents  apiece  from  24,600  farmers- 
Mr.  KNIGHT.  Is  not  that  a  pretty  good  indication  of  the  interest  the 
farmer  takes  in  this  matter? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes;  but  it  does  not  establish  Governor  Hoard's  state- 
ment that  he  represents  5,000,000  farmers,  and  it  is  not  an  illustration 
of  the  interest  of  the  farmer,  either. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  regard  it  as  material  to  go  into 
that  matter,  Mr.  Schell. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  think  not.  Yet  it  is  their  main  reliance.  The  rest  of 
them  do  not  say  anything.  We  will  concede  that  24,600  of  them  are 
actually  represented  by  Mr.  Knight.  That  is  all  right. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  We  can  save  you  the  trouble  of  going  into  that 
question.  The  various  members  of  the  Senate  have  facilities  for  know- 
ing the  feelings  of  the  farmers,  outside  of  Mr.  Knight. 


288  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Have  they  exercised  them,  though?  That  is  a  ques- 
tion I  want  to  know  about. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Oh,  yes.  1  think  I  can  illustrate  that  by  show- 
ing you  some  of  the  petitions  we  have  received. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Petitions?  Gentlemen,  I  could  have  brought  you 
here 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Oh,  well;  we  understand  all  about  that. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Since  I  was  here  before,  I  could  have  had  thousands 
of  letters  and  telegrams.  I  could  have  had  Senator  Foraker's  time, 
when  he  was  in  Cincinnati,  completely  taken ;  I  could  have  had  the 
hallway  leading  to  his  office,  and  his  office,  crowded  with  people  pro- 
testing against  the  enactment  of  this  bill.  I  could  have  blocked  the 
elevator  and  had  a  waiting  line  three  blocks  long  on  the  pavement. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  point  I  am  making  is  that  if  it  is  important 
to  know  the  condition  of  public  opinion  as  to  this  measure,  the  com- 
mittee will  neither  rely  upon  your  statement  nor  those  of  Mr.  Knight. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Or  statements  that  emanate  from  either  one  of  us, 
through  whatever  source  they  may  come? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  committee  will  have  a  thousand  ways  of 
finding  out  what  the  public  wants. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  But,  gentlemen,  that  does  not  enter  into  this  contro- 
versy, or  ought  not  to  do  so. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  We  now  take  up  something  that  is  material;  and  that 
is,  how  well  these  laws  have  been  enforced  and  how  largely  they  have 
been  violated.  Mr.  Knight  accounts  before  the  House  committee 
(p.  61)  for  $1,670.13  of  this  fund  which  was  contributed,  which  was 
used  for  the  purpose  of  prosecuting  the  Chicago  dealers.  He  also 
says  at  page  40,  regarding  why  he  ceased  efforts,  that  the  funds  were 
exhausted.  Do  1  quote  correctly? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  think  so.  That  is  an  entirely  separate  thing, 
Mr.  Schell — a  separate  organization. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  record  speaks  for  itself,  pages  40  and  61. 

I  read  from  page  40 : 

These  cases  were  dismissed  by  the  justice  of  the  peace  upon  grounds  that  a  subse- 
quent statute  had  repealed  the  law  under  which  the  warrants  were  drawn,  but  not 
until  after  $1,600  had  been  spent  by  the  parties  interested  in  an  effort  to  stop  this 
gigantic  fraud  in  the  city  of  Chicago.  The  decision  admitted  of  no  appeal.  The 
Dairy  Union's  funds  were  exhausted. 

Now,  I  want  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  all  of  these  cases,  in 
every  instance,  except  in  the  case  of  one  Broadwell,  the  stamp  was 
always  found  on  the  wrapper.  And  as  Mr.  Bailey  said : 

There  could  be  no  question  about  a  man's  finding  the  mark  on  any  package  you 
have  shown  to  me  this  morning;  and  with  the  publicity  you  have  given  it,  I  should 
think  that  they  would  not  find  it  profitable  and  people  would  not  buy  it. 

Then  Mr.  Knight  goes  on  to  say  that  the  farmers  are  losing  confi- 
dence and  losing  heart.  Mr.  Bailey  says  (p.  64) :  uls  not  that  contrary 
to  the  evidence  that  Governor  Hoard  gave  here  the  other  day  to  the 
effect  that  this  industry  has  increased  more  than  any  other  in  the  coun- 
try to-day  *? " 

Then  the  chairman  asked  the  question :  "Do  you  think  Congress  has 
a  right  to  legislate  so  as  to  make  one  article  higher  and  another  lower, 
or  to  drive  it  out  of  the  market  ? ?' 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  think  Congress  has  any  business  to  look  into  that  phase  of 
the  matter  at  all.  I  think  Congress  should  look  out  for  protecting  the  consumer 
and  the  health  of  the  consumer. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  289 

We  agree  about  that. 

(At  this  point  an  informal  recess  was  taken  for  a  few  moments  in 
order  to  allow  members  of  the  committee  to  return  to  the  Senate  Cham- 
ber. After  the  recess  had  expired  the  following  occurred:) 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  statement  was  made  Saturday,  I 
think  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  or  by  the  acting  chairman,  that 
these  hearings  would  probably  be  concluded  to-morrow  or  Wednesday. 
However  explicit  or  binding  that  was  1  do  not  know. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  that  is  true  the  present  speaker  ought  to 
be  admonished  as  to  the  consumption  of  time. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  speaker,  Mr.  Chairman,  has  been  admonishing 
himself,  and  has  cut  out  quite  a  good  deal  of  what  he  intended  to  say, 
because  he  feared  to  trespass  too  much  on  the  patience  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  be  permitted  at  this  time,  and  if 
the  gentleman  will  suspend  for  a  moment — and  it  is  only  with  your 
consent  that  I  will  continue 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  would  rather,  since  my  time  is  limited 

Mr.  ADAMS.  What  I  am  about  to  say  does  not  relate  to  any  questions 
you  are  discussing,  Mr.  Schell,  but  simply  to  the  order  of  the  discus- 
sion and  the  extent  of  it. 

Some  of  us  are  here  representing  the  other  side.  We  have  had  only 
about  20  per  cent  of  the  time,  perhaps,  but  we  are  not  complaining. 
We  feel,  however,  that  we  can  properly  be  heard  by  this  committee,  and 
we  would  like  to  have  a  time  designated,  either  to-morrow  or  Wednes- 
day, when  we  can  be  heard. 

The  representatives  of  the  oleomargarine  interests  have  oeen  heard 
here  during  the  entire  day — a  day  which  it  was  arranged  last  week 
should  betaken  up  by  the  representatives  of  the  cotton- seed  oil  people. 
Those  representatives,  as  I  understand,  are  here.  They  will  undoubt- 
edly want  to  be  heard  to-morrow.  Now,  as  representing  the  friends  of 
the  Grout  bill,  I  would  like  to  request  of  the  committee  that  either 
to-morrow  or  the  day  following  be  assigned  for  a  hearing  on  our  side  of 
the  question.  That  is  all  I  wish  to  say,  simply  to  make  everything 
explicit  and  regular. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  present  chairman  would  not  feel  at 
liberty  to  make  any  designation  of  that  sort,  but  I  think  I  can  assure 
the  gentlemen  that  that  will  be  done  at  the  first  of  the  session  to-morrow 
morning.  That  is  to  say,  some  orderly  arrangement  will  be  designated 
by  which  these  hearings  can  be  wound  up. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  all  I  ask. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  to  call  attention  to  a  statement 
of  Congressman  Grout  before  this  committee.  I  mention  this  only  to 
get  as  nearly  as  possible  on  the  record  to  what  features  of  their  claims 
I, am  referring,  and  how  nearly  they  are  a  unit  on  what  they  claim, 
and  to  enable  us  to  get  an  understanding  of  the  case,  so  that  we  may 
know  what  they  expect  to  realize  from  this  bill,  and  their  views  of  its 
constitutionality. 

General  Grout  says,  on  page  6 : 

The  power  to  tax,  and  tax  out  of  existence,  is  unquestioned,  as  I  believe, 
gentlemen. 

Senator  Allen  says : 

Suppose  it  is  apparent  on  the  face  of  this  bill  that  the  motive  for  imposing  the 
tax  is  to  destroy  the  thing  taxed? 

Mr.  Grout  says : 

We  deny  this.     We  say  that  is  not  the  motive. 

S.  Rep.  2043 19 


290  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Then,  if  they  do  not  want  it,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  it  outside  of 
their  wishes,  the  committee  certainly  will  not  do  something  which  will 
tax  it  out  of  existence. 

General  Grout  says  further : 

All  that  it  seeks  to  destroy  is  the  fraud  that  is  perpetrated  when  it  is  colored  like 
butter. 

At  page  9  he  says: 

But  if  you  will  put  this  10-cent  tax  on  it,  and  stop  coloring  it  like  butter,  the 
game  will  then  be  up. 

On  page  11  (sustaining  my  statement  as  to  the  friends  of  the  bill 
having  closed  their  case)  he  says : 

The  friends  of  the  bill  submit  their  case,  and  give  the  field  to  those  who  are 
opposed  to  the  measure. 

I  wanted  to  mention,  at  some  length,  Mr.  Hamilton's  argument;  but 
I  will  only  refer  to  the  fact  that  in  Pennsylvania  now,  according  to  his 
testimony,  as  I  interpreted  it,  and  according  to  the  statement  for  the 
commission  men  who  were  here,  the  State  law  is  practically  enforced — 
at  least,  in  Philadelphia. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  a  law  which  forbids  the  sale  of 
colored  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  forbids  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine.  They 
have  reduced  the  licenses  in  Philadelphia  from  over  500  to  some  32.  I 
will  say  from  my  knowledge,  which  is  hearsay,  but  accurate,  that  in 
western  Pennsylvania  they  have  not  been  as  successful  in  enforcing 
the  color  law  as  they  have  been  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  State, 
because  there  is  such  a  sentiment  against  it  that  the  people  rise  up  en 
masse  and  say,  "  We  won't  have  it." 

I  now  want  to  refer  to  the  statements  of  the  Ohio  commissioner,  who 
believed  in  the  national  law.  He  says  he  can  enforce  the  oleo-for-butter 
clause  in  the  Ohio  law,  but  can  not  enforce  the  color  law.  He  says 
that  75  per  cent  of  the  oleomargarine  sold  in  his  State  was  sold  for 
butter.  He  is  wrong  there,  I  think.  He  is  basing  his  statement  on 
the  percentage  of  oleo-for-butter  cases  that  he  wins  rather  than  upon 
actual  knowledge.  I  think  he  stated  that  he  had  no  actual  knowledge 
of  the  case. 

Mr.  Flanders,  of  New  York,  was  so  violent  and  so  evidently  preju- 
diced, that  while  there  were  a  great  many  things  I  wanted  to  say  about 
his  argument,  I  think  it  will  probably  speak  for  itself  on  our  side.  He 
claimed  general  rottenness,  scoundrelism,  and  so  forth,  and  then  owned 
up  voluntarily  that  abuse  was  no  argument. 

Mr.  Flanders  claimed  that  the  Government  did  not  enforce  these 
laws,  and  the  States  could  not.  Yet  he  has  shown  that  the  laws  of  his 
own  State  (and  it  is  a  fact)  are  very  rigidly  and  successfully  enforced, 
and  that  his  department  had  time  and  money  to  make  a  "gum-shoe" 
expedition  to  Chicago. 

The  Pennsylvania  crowd  which  appeared  yesterday  was  rather  amus- 
ing. They  were  here  for  the  same  purpose  that  farmers  are  sent  to  camp 
in  the  yards  of  State  legislatures  when  their  dairy  laws  are  to  be  con- 
sidered; and  for  the  same  cause  that  members  receive  telegrams  and 
letters;  but  they  were  all  evidently  actually  interested,  since  they 
handled  process  butter,  with  one  exception.  That  exception  was  Mr. 
Sharpless,  who  wants  50  cents  per  pound  for  his  butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Sharpless  was  not  a  dealer. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No;  I  say,  except  him.  One  objected  to  the  filth  of 
country  butter.  They  were  all  kept  pretty  well  in  hand  until  about 


OLEOMARGARINE.  291 

the  time  of  the  committee  adjournment,  when  some  were  thinking  for 
themselves.  Despite  the  efforts  of  their  overseer  (who  was  himself 
coached  by  General  Grout),  and  although  they  did  not  get  on  record, 
about  half  of  them  expressed  themselves  in  favor  of  a  law  that  would 
hedge  about  colored  oleo,  keep  it  on  its  own  merits,  but  not  drive  it  out 
of  the  market.  I  think  that  is  the  expression  of  the  majority  of  the 
people  who  are  interested  in  the  dairy  product. 

Mr.  Kauffman  I  wanted  to  treat  at  length;  but  his  argument  is 
reduced  to  the  statement  that  the  color  laws  are  enforced  in  Philadel- 
phia; that  they  always  have  been  whenever  they  have  made  the  effort; 
and  I  think  in  his  argument  somewhere  will  be  found  the  fact  that  only 
$12,500  a  year  is  appropriated  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  the  law  of 
the  State,  and  that  that  is  not  enough.  The  farmers  who  expect  these 
laws  to  be  supported  and  enforced  should  furnish  the  people  who  are 
charged  with  that  duty  with  enough  money  to  properly  enforce  the 
law. 

Now,  our  side,  Mr.  Chairman,  does  not  attempt  to  convince  by  an 
array — although  on  analysis  we  would  outnumber  in  actual  represen- 
tation— that  is,  authorized  representation  before  the  committee;  and  if 
the  sentiments  of  the  other  side,  the  friends  of  the  bill,  were  actually 
made  known,  we  would  infinitely  outnumber  as  to  the  sentiment.  But 
that  does  not  control. 

From  the  first  hearing  until  now  1  could  have  had  our  Ohio  Senators 
and  the  members  of  the  committee  deluged  with  thousands  of  letters 
and  telegrams,  the  same  as  you  have  had  from  the  other  side,  by  using 
my  office  force,  the  Cincinnati  wholesalers,  300  retailers  to  whom  we 
sell  in  Cincinnati;  by  the  same  process  in  Cleveland;  and  an  equal 
number  from  Columbus  and  Toledo  combined,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
Kansas  City  house  with  its  numerous  ramifications — the  retail  dealers, 
their  employees,  "their  sisters  and  cousins  and  aunts.'7  But  we  have 
not  resorted  to  such  measures;  and  we  condemn,  just  as  positively  as 
did  Senator  Allen  the  other  day,  that  method,  and  hope  that  none  of 
that  has  been  found  in  presenting  our  side. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill — the 
fruit  by  which  you  can  recognize  the  tree. 

We  have  examined  the  tree.  It  has  been  said,  "A  good  tree  brings 
forth  good  fruit,  and  an  evil  tree  evil  fruit."  This  bill,  we  insist,  is  dis- 
honest in  every  particular.  It  is  the  illegitimate  child  of  avarice  and 
ignorance — the  avarice  o'f  the  people  who  pander  to  the  prejudices  ot 
the  poorer  class  of  farmers,  and  the  ignorance  of  some  of  the  people 
they  represent.  The  purpose  of  the  bill,  on  its  face,  is  revenue.  It 
comes  before  you  painted,  colored.  Its  avowed  purpose  is  the  regula- 
tion of  fraud.  Its  actual  purpose,  as  creeps  out,  evidenced  by  the  other 
side  and  apparent  to  all,  is  to  destroy  an  industry — to  destroy  the 
product  of  colored  oleomargarine. 

As  to  the  avowed  purpose,  the  regulation  of  fraud,  is  it  necessary? 
We  claim  not.  Are  the  present  laws  sufficient,  if  enforced  ?  We  claim 
they  are.  And  if  it  is  for  this  purpose,  why  not  accept  the  substitute 
bill,  to  which  I  will  refer  presently. 

Have  they  really  proven  that  there  is  any  considerable  amount  of 
fraud?  The  most  direct  testimony  on  that  point,  and,  in  fact,  the  only 
testimony,  is  that  of  the  Philadelphia  attorney.  That  was  direct  and 
to  the  point,  and  should  be  considered.  One  of  the  gentlemen,  perhaps 
two  of  the  gentlemen  here  to-day,  in  answer  to  the  questions  of  the 
chairman,  testified  that  butter  was  called  for  and  oleomargarine  was 
given;  but  they  said  that  the  dealer  knew  that  when  the  child,  or  the 


292  OLEOMAKGARINE. 

servant,  or  the  housewife  called  for  butter  she  meant  oleomargarine, 
and  the  dealer,  by  long  experience,  knew  what  she  wanted,  what  she 
used. 

I  know  that  to  be  the  fact.  I  know  it  is  the  case.  I  have  watched 
when  dealers  were  selling  it,  and  I  have  seen  customers  come  in  and 
say,  "Give  me  a  pound  of  butter,"  or  "two  pounds  of  butter."  The 
dealer  would  wrap  up  oleomargarine.  I  have  said :  "  Why  did  you  do 
that?  Those  are  against  your  instructions."  "Why,  I  know  what  she 
wants.  She  comes  in  here  and  buys  it  every  day.  She  understands 
it."  And  I  have  iollowed  the  purchaser  out  and  said:  "Do  you  know 
you  are  getting  oleomargarine?"  "Yes;  what  business  is  it  of  yours," 
or  words  to  that  effect.  I  know  it  to  be  the  case,  and  I  will  tell  you  why 
and  how. 

Some  years  ago  I  was  employed  by  the  Union  Dairy  Company  to 
defend  their  retail  customers  in  southern  Ohio  who  were  prosecuted 
under  the  Ohio  color  laws.  These  retailers  would  appeal  to  me  for 
my  services  in  cases"  where  they  were  charged  with  selling  oleomarga- 
rine for  butter.  Mr.  Frank  Seither,  the  president  and  manager  of  the 
company,  said  to  me,  "  Under  no  circumstances  defend  for  us  a  man 
who  is  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter.  I  don't  want  it;  I  won't  have 
it.  I  will  contribute  to  a  fund  to  prosecute  them  if  they  do  it.  I  am 
making  a  product  that  I  want  to  go  on  the  market  for  what  it  is."  And 
that  has  been  my  experience  with  all  the  factories. 

However,  I  have  been  employed  by  retailers  to  defend  oleo  for  butter 
cases,  among  them  one  of  the  big  Cincinnati  firms  who  have  some  twenty- 
five  or  thirty  stores  over  the  city.  They  handle  all  kinds  of  groceries. 
They  advertise  oleomargarine.  They  have  been  accused  of  violating 
the  laws.  The  same  question  was  brought  to  my  attention,  "What 
will  we  do?  Somebody  comes  in  and  wants  oleomargarine,  but  he  does 
not  want  to  parade  the  fact  on  account  of  the  sentiment  which  has  been 
created  against  it.  He  does  not  want  to  parade  the  fact  before  the  public, 
before  people  who  are  standing  by.  I  know  that  is  my  customer.  I  know 
that  is  what  he  or  she  wants.  What  am  I  to  do  ?"  I  made  it  a  rule  that 
in  every  case  the  clerk  was  to  ask  something  to  the  effect,  "Do  you  want 
oleo?"  "It  is  oleo  you  want?"  "  It  is  butterine  you  want?"  I  instructed 
them  to  say  it  so  that  there  could  be  no  question  about  it.  And  my 
experience  was  that  ordinarily  the  reply  was  "Yes."  And  my  experi- 
ence was  also  to  the  effect  that  when  the  question  was  asked  and  no 
reply  given  by  a  customer,  who  proved  to  be  a  detective,  that  the  jury 
found  my  client  guilty — so  strong  is  the  feeling  that  oleo  should  be  sold 
for  what  it  is.  It  is  even  harder  to  defend  under  oleo  for  butter  laws 
than  it  is  to  prosecute  under  the  color  laws. 

(Thereupon,  at  5  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  until  Tuesday 
January  8,  1901,  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.) 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Tuesday,  January  8,  1901. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Proctor,  Hansbrough  (acting  chairman), Heitfeld, 
Foster,  and  Money;  also  Charles  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National 
Dairy  Union;  Frank  W.  Tillinghast,  representing  the  Vermont  Manu- 
facturing Company,  of  Providence,  R.  I.;  Charles  E.  Schell,  represent- 
ing the  Ohio  Butterine  Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  W.  E.  Miller, 
representing  the  Armour  Packing  Company  of  Kansas  City,  Mo. ;  John 
F.  Jelke,  representing  Messrs.  Braun  &  Fitts,  Chicago,  111. ;  Henry  E. 
Davis,  representing  the  National  Butterine  Company,  Washington, 
D.  C.,  and  others. 


OLEOMAKGARINE.  293 


CONTINUATION  OF  STATEMENT  OF  CHARLES  E.  SCHELL. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  my  purpose  to  treat  to-day  the 
avowed  purpose  of  this  bill — the  regulation  of  fraud — and  our  claim 
that  the  bill  is  not  necessary  for  that  purpose,  since  a  proper  enforce- 
ment of  the  present  State  and  national  laws  (and  it  has  been  shown 
that  they  are  capable  of  enforcement,  and  are  enforced)  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  rectify  all  the  evils  of  which  complaint  is  made,  without  any 
additional  legislation. 

In  support  of  the  claim  that  if  the  avowed  purpose  of  this  bill  is  its 
real  purpose  it  is  not  necessary,  since  the  existing  laws  are  sufficient,  I 
want  to  introduce  some  of  the  present  laws  on  the  point  directly  in 
controversy. 

First,  the  revenue  law.  We  will  take  a  very  small  part  of  this;  and 
let  me  state  generally  that  the  law  relating  to  manufacturers  is  that  if 
any  manufacturer  attempts  to  defraud  the  Government  on  any  part  of 
this  revenue,  the  manufacturer  forfeits  his  factory,  the  completed  prod- 
uct therein  contained,  all  raw  materials,  the  machinery,  and  every- 
thing connected  with  it,  and  is  subjected  to  a  fine  of  from  $500  to 
$5,000,  and  (not  "or,"  but  "and")  an  imprisonment  from  six  months 
to  three  years.  That  question  was  raised  here  two  or  three  days  ago 
between  Mr.  Pirrung  and  Mr.  Knight.  Mr.  Pirrung  claimed  a  for- 
feiture; but  he  was  advised  he  did  not  know  the  law.  That  is  the  law. 

There  are  other  penalties  for  other  offenses,  and  then  there  is  a 
sweeping  penalty  of  $1,000  for  all  offenses  not  specifically  provided 
for.  But  I  believe  it  is  admitted  that  the  factories  practically  do  com- 
ply with  the  law.  It  is  claimed,  however,  that  the  retailers  do  not,  and 
that  it  is  with  the  idea  of  hedging  in  and  about  the  retailers  that  this 
bill  is  proposed. 

The  first  part  of  the  law  relating  to  retailers,  to  which  I  wish  to  call 
your  attention,  is  as  follows — and  here  I  quote  from  the  revenue  laws  : 

Retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine  must  sell  only  from  original  stamped  packages, 
in  quantities  not  exceeding  ten  pounds,  and  shall  pack  the  oleomargarine  sold  by 
them  in  suitable  wooden  or  paper  packages,  which  shall  be  marked  and  branded  as 
the  commissioner  of  internal  revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  shall  prescribe.  Every  person  who  knowingly  sells  or  offers  for  sale,  or 
delivers  or  offers  to  deliver,  any  oleomargarine  in  any  other  form  than  in  new  wooden 
or  paper  packages  as  above  described,  or  who  packs  in  any  package  any  oleomarga- 
rine in  any  manner  contrary  to  law,  or  who  falsely  brands  any  package  or  affixes  a 
stamp  on  any  package  denoting  a  less  amount  of  tax  than  that  required  by  law, 
shall  be  fined  for  each  offense  not  more  than  one  thousand  dollars  and  be  imprisoned 
not  more  than  two  years. 

They  are  subject  to  the  regulations  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  and  a  part  of  those  regulations  are : 

As  the  retail  dealer  is  required  to  sell  from  original  stamped  packages,  and  can 
not,  as  a  retail  dealer,  sell  in  such  packages,  he  is  compelled  to  make  up  his  own 
packages.  *  New  wooden  or  paper  packages  similar  to  those  usually 

employed  in  selling  butter  and  lard  at  retail  may  be  used  by  the  retail  dealer  in 
oleomargarine. 

Each  retailer's  wooden  or  paper  package  must  have  the  name  and  address  of  the 
dealer  printed  or  branded  thereon,  likewise  the  words  " pound"  and  "oleomarga- 
rine," in  letters  not  less  than  one-quarter  of  an  inch  square,  and  the  quantity  written, 
printed,  or  branded  thereon  in  figures  of  the  same  size  (one-quarter  of  an  inch 
square),  substantially  as  follows: 

Then  a  form  is  prescribed.  That  is  the  form  we  use — "  Blanks  for 
name  and  address,  J  Pound  Oleomargarine." 

The  words  "Oleomargarine"  and  "Pound,"  which  are  required  to  be  printed  or 
branded  on  retailers'  wooden  or  paper  packages,  in  letters  not  less  than  one-quarter 


294  OLEOMARGARINE. 

of  an  inch  square,  and  the  quantity  which  is  required  to  be  written,  printed,  or 
branded  thereon  in  figures  of  like  size,  must  be  so  placed  as  to  be  plainly  visible  to 
the  purchaser  at  the  time  of  delivery  to  him,  etc. 

It  provides  that  the  color  of  the  ink  in  which  the  words  are  printed 
must  be  in  the  strongest  contrast  to  the  color  of  the  package. 

Now,  I  have  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  stamp  which  we  used  in  com- 
pliance with  that  law.  Since  coming  here  I  wrote  to  one  of  our  men  to 
send  me  a  sample  copy  of  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Schell,  let  me  ask  you  how  long  you 
expect  to  occupy  the  attention  of  the  committee ! 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  think  I  can  conclude  in  fifteen  minutes  more. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  ask,  then,  if  the  represent- 
atives of  the  cotton-seed  industry  are  here? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  They  are,  I  think. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  of  them  are  there,  Mr.  Miller? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Four. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  they  arranged  so  that  one  or  two 
will  present  their  views;  or  do  they  all  want  to  be  heard? 

Mr.  MILLER.  They  all  want  to  be  heard.  One  party  will  present  the 
main  argument;  but  they  all  want  to  be  heard. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  will  recall  that  the  committee  arranged 
for  these  hearings  to  continue  until  this  afternoon  on  the  part  of  the 
oleomargarine  people,  and  that  the  butter  interests  were  to  be  allowed 
to-morrow  to  close.  I  do  not  feel  like  changing  that  arrangement.  It 
was  made  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  and  I  think  we  should 
conform  to  it.  So  the  representatives  of  the  cotton-seed  industry  ought 
to  be  able  to  put  in  their  testimony  this  afternoon  and  get  through 
with  it,  and  allow  the  butter  people  to  go  on  to-morrow  and  close  the 
hearings. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  one  member  of  the  committee 
from  Texas  who  was  not  able  to  get  his  statistics  together  yesterday. 
He  intended  to  be  here  this  morning,  and  ask  for  a  hearing  to-inorrow 
morning. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  feel  like  changing  the  arrange- 
ment made  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  and  really  do  not  feel 
at  liberty  to  do  so.  This  hearing  has  been  open  and  very  liberal.  We 
have  sat  here  a  long,  long  time;  and  we  ought  to  begin  to  see  the  end 
somewhere,  it  seems  to  me.  I  shall  expect  the  representatives  of  the 
cotton-seed  industry  to  go  on  this  afternoon,  and  to  allow  the  butter 
men  to  go  on  to-morrow,  unless  the  chairman  or  the  committee  arrange 
otherwise. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  call  your  attention 
briefly  to  the  Ohio  State  pure-food  law.  I  understand  that  the  laws  of 
other  States  do  not  differ  materially  from  it;  and  if  they  do,  and  these 
laws  are  proven  sufficient,  and  others  are  not,  it  will  be  a  very  easy 
matter,  from  the  past  experience  of  butter  people  with  legislatures,  to 
change  the  laws  so  that  they  are  sufficient. 

We  have  a  general  food  law  to  provide  against  the  adulteration  of 
foods  and  drugs.  Section  3  of  the  act  begins:  "An  article  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  adulterated  within  the  meaning  of  this  act :  (a)  In  the  case 
of  drugs:  (1),"  and  so  forth.  The  third  provision  of  that  section  is: 
"If  its  strength,  quality,  or  purity  falls  below  the  professed  standard 
under  which  it  is  sold."  That  has,  I  think,  been  held  constitutional 
and  found  sufficient  in  every  case  as  to  drugs. 


Now; 

m  if 


OLEOMARGARINE  295 


Now,  in  the  case  of  food : 

If  any  substance  or  substances  have  been  mixed  with  it,  so  as  to  lower  or 
depreciate,  or  injuriously  affect  its  quality,  strength,  or  purity;  (2)  if  any  inferior 
or  cheaper  substance  or  substances  have  been  substituted  wholly  or  in  part  for  it; 
(3)  if  any  valuable  or  necessary  constituent  or  ingredient  has  been  wholly  or  in  part 
abstracted  from  it;  (4)  if  it  is  an  imitation  of  or  is  sold  under  the  name  of  another 
article;  (5)  if  it  consists  wholly,  or  in  part,  of  a  diseased,  decomposed,  putrid, 
infected,  tainted,  or  rotton  animal  or  vegetable  substance  or  article,  whether  manu- 
factured or  not;  or,  in  the  case  of  milk,  if  it  is  the  produce  of  a  diseased  animal; 
(6)  if  it  is  colored,  coated,  polished,  or  powdered,  whereby  damage  or  inferiority  is 
concealed,  or  if  by  any  means  it  is  made  to  appear  better  or  of  greater  value  than  it 
really  is;  (7)  if  it  contains  any  added  substance  or  ingredient  which  is  poisonous  or 
injurious  to  health. 

This,  gentlemen,  I  claim  would  cover  and  is  sufficient  to  cover  any 
possible  adulteration.  Among  some  of  the  prosecutions  which  have  been 
brought  under  this  section  are  prosecutions  for  adulteration  of  milk. 
The  guileless  farmer  brings  to  town  and  sells  us  milk  which  we  find  is 
preserved  sometimes  with  borax,  sometimes  with  salicylic  acid,  some- 
times with  formaldehyde;  but  they  seem  to  know  how  to  preserve  their 
milk,  if  they  do  not  know  how  to  make  butter. 

We  have  another  act  to  prevent  adulteration  and  deception  in  the 
sale  of  dairy  products,  passed  later  on.  Part  of  one  of  the  provisions 
of  that  act  is : 

And  the  words  "  butter,"  "  creamery,"  or  "dairy,"  or  any  word  or  combination  of 
words  embracing  the  same,  shall  not  be  placed  on  any  vessel,  package,  roll,  or  parcel 
containing  any  imitation  dairy  product  or  substance  not  wholly  made  from  pure 
milk,  or  cream,  salt,  and  harmless  coloring  matter. 

And  another  provision: 

No  person  shall  sell  any  oleomargarine,  suine,  imitation  cheese,  or  other  imitation 
dairy  product,  at  retail  or  in  any  quantity  less  than  the  original  package,  tub,  or 
firkin,  unless  he  shall  first  inform  the  purchaser  that  the  substance  is  not  butter  or 
cheese,  but  an  imitation  of  the  same. 

Still  another  act — the  act  under  which  most  of  the  prosecutions  now 
are  brought — a  first-class  act,  excepting  the  color  clause  and  the  pro- 
vision about  advising  the  purchaser.  This  act  was  passed  May  16, 
1894: 

SECTION  1.  Beit  enacted  ly  the  general  assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  That  no  person 
shall  manufacture,  offer  or  expose  for  sale — 

And  I  want  the  committee  to  remember  the  u  shall  manufacture n 
clause — 

sell  or  deliver,  or  have  in  his  possession  with  intent  to  sell  or  deliver,  any  oleomar- 
garine which  contains  any  methyl  orange,  butter  yellow,  annotto,  aniline  dye,  or 
any  other  coloring  matter. 

That  prevents  the  factory  from  manufacturing,  even  for  exporting 
purposes,  colored  oleomargarine.  It  can  not  make  it. at  all. 

SEC.  2.  Every  person  who  shall  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  sell  or  deliver,  or  have  in 
his  possession  with  intent  to  sell  or  deliver,  any  oleomargarine,  shall  keep  a  white 
placard,  not  less  in  size  than  10  by  14  inches,  in  a  conspicuous  place  where  the  same 
may  be  easily  seen  and  read,  in  the  store,  room,  stand,  booth,  vehicle,  or  place  where 
such  substance  is  offered  or  exposed  for  sale,  on  which  placard  shall  be  printed  in 
black  letters,  not  less  in  size  than  one  and  one-half  inches  square,  the  words, 
"Oleomargarine  sold  here/'  and  said  placard  shall  not  contain  any  other  words  than 
the  ones  described;  and  no  person  shall  sell  or  deliver  any  oleomargarine  unless  it 
be  done  under  its  true  name,  and  each  package  has  on  the  upper  side  thereof  a  label 
on  which  is  printed,  in  letters  not  less  than  five-eighths  of  an  inch  square,  the  word 
"  Oleomargarine,"  and  in  letters  not  less  than  one-eighth  of  an  inch  square  the  name 
and  per  cent  of  each  ingredient  therein. 


296  OLEOMARGARINE. 

And  section  3  provides,  in  regard  to  hotel  proprietors,  restaurants, 
and  boarding-house  keepers  having  a  sign  on  the  wall,  "  Oleomargarine 
sold  and  used  here,"  and  that  in  no  instance  shall  they  serve  oleomar- 
garine, even  if  that  sign  is  up,  when  butter  is  called  for. 

SEC.  4.  The  word  "  Oleomargarine,"  as  used  in  this  act.  shall  be  construed  to  mean 
any  substance  not  pure  butter  of  not  less  than  eighty  per  cent  of  butter  fats,  which 
substance  is  made  as  substitute  for,  in  imitation  of,  or  to  be  used  as  butter. 

This  act  provides  a  penalty  for  manufacturers  of  not  less  than  $100 
nor  more  than  $500,  and  for  each  subsequent  offense,  in  addition  to  the 
above  fine,  the  offender  may  be  imprisoned  in  the  county  jail  not  more 
than  ninety  days. 

Any  other  person  violating  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall,  upon  conviction 
thereof,  be  fined  not  less  than  fifty  dollars  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars. 

Gentlemen,  with  these  laws  in  force,  and  with  the  intention  of  com- 
plying therewith,  I  advised  my  clients  that  the  retailer  must  stamp  or 
label  the  parchment  in  which  the  butteriue  was  wrapped,  the  wooden 
dish  in  which  it  was  placed,  and  the  wrapper  which  was  placed  over 
all,  and  that  he  must  also  at  the  time  of  the  purchase  in  some  way 
(unostentatiously,  of  course)  advise  the  customer  what  he  was  buying. 
For  instance,  if  butter  was  called  for,  even  if  it  was  known  that  the 
prospective  purchaser  wanted  oleomargarine,  the  clerk  should  say, 
"  You  want  oleo?  "  u  You  want  butterine?  "  or  something  of  that  kind, 
so  that  the  name  should  always  be  mentioned  between  the  parties,  so 
that  there  could  be  no  mistake. 

In  addition  to  that,  in  the  season  when  it  is  not  necessary  to  keep 
the  butter  and  the  oleomargarine  down  in  a  refrigerator  the  retail  deal- 
ers whom  I  represented  had  racks  arranged  upon  which  they  placed 
their  oleomargarine  and  their  butter  tubs,  something  on  the  order  that 
I  have  outlined  here  [exhibiting  diagram].  There  would  be,  say,  the 
two  tubs  of  butter.  Two  tubs  of  oleomargarine,  I  think,  came  on  top, 
one  at  13  and  one  at  15  cents,  and  over  that  was  a  placard,  "Oleo,  13 
cents,"  "  Oleo,  15  cents."  The  other  tubs  were  marked  "Dairy  butter, 
18  cents,"  and  "  Creamery  butter,  25  cents,"  as  the  case  might  be. 
Then  over  all  would  be  the  label  required  by  the  State  laws,  "  Oleo- 
margarine sold  here" — so  plain,  gentlemen,  that  the  wayfaring  man, 
though  a  fool,  need  not  have  erred  therein. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  simply  a  request  on  your  part 
that  the  dealers  do  this? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes  j  that  was  simply  a  request. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Did  that  comply  with  the  law  of  the  State  of  Ohio? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  complied  with  theoleo-for-butter  law  of  the  State 
of  Ohio,  and  went  further,  in  order  to  fully  advise  the  customer. 

Senator  FOSTER.  How  many  dealers  are  there  in  the  State? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  One  firm,  whom  I  represented  and  who  to  my  certain 
knowledge  complied  with  my  instructions  in  this  case,  operated  25 
stores  in  different  parts  of  the  city. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  how  many  were  there  in  the  city  who 
did  not  comply  with  this  system  ? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  So  far  as  I  know,  not  a  single  individual. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Have  there  been  any  prosecutions  in  the  last  year 
there  in  Ohio  ? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes;  there  have  been.  And,  as  the  food  commissioner 
stated  here  the  other  day,  in  the  majority  of  cases  of  selling  oleomarga- 
rine for  butter  there  have  been  convictions. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (referring  to  a  book  handed  him  by  Mr. 
Knight).  There  seem  to  be  1,439  retail  dealers  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 


. 

WP.l'P,  1 


OLEOMARGARINE.  297 


Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  if  I  knew  what  sort  of  statistics  the  gentlemen 
were  handing  in,  as  courtesy  entitles  us  to  know  in  cases  at  law  before 
anything  goes  to  the  judge  or  the  jury 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  here  the  report  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Internal  Revenue. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  personally  watched  the  carrying 
out  of  these  rules,  and  it  was  amusing  to  see  the  resentment  on  a 
woman's  face  when  she  would  point  to  the  oleomargarine  tubs,  so  pla- 
carded and  priced,  and  say,  "Give  me  some  of  that  15-cent  butter," 
and  be  met  with  the  remark,  "You  want  oleomargarine?"  or  "You 
want  butterine?"  It  was  not  a  pleasant  task  for  the  sales  girl.  But 
I  think  the  rule  was  largely  carried  out,  except  in  cases  of  regular  cus- 
tomers, regarding  whom  mention  has  been  made;  and  in  those  cases 
there  was  not  even  a  technical  violation,  since  they  had  most  of  them 
been  theretofore  informed  orally  and  by  a  multitude  of  stamped 
wrappers. 

Senator  PROCTOR.  Allow  me  to  ask  how  it  is  with  the  people  who 
eat  it"?  Are  they  notified  at  hotels  and  restaurants  and  boarding 
houses  1  Do  they  eat  it  as  oleomargarine  or  as  butter? 
*Mr.  SCHELL.  As  was  said  yesterday,  I  think  that  the  law  as  it  stands 
at  present,  especially  if  modified  in  accordance  with  the  recommenda- 
tion of  Commissioner  Wilson,  confines  the  question  of  fraud  to  the 
hotels  and  boarding  houses.  And  as  was,  I  think,  fairly  stated,  the 
hotels  could  not  stand  the  prosecutions  that  would  follow  and  the 
advertisement  that  would  be  given.  As  to  boarding  houses,  they  would 
come  under  the  same  ruling,  except  that  they  could  better  stand  the 
prosecutions.  But  they  could  better  afford  to  display  the  required 
sign,  as  most  of  them  do.  As  to  the  people  who  live  largely  in  board- 
ing houses,  I  think  they  are  principally  limited  to  old  bachelors.  We 
have  too  many  boarding  houses  and  not  enough  homes;  and  if  some- 
thing could  be  done  to  drive  those  bachelors  away  from  boarding 
houses  and  get  them  to  establish  homes  of  their  own,  I  think  it  would 
be  a  good  act  rather  than  otherwise.  [Laughter.] 

Senator  HANSBROUGrH.  And  until  they  get  married  you  think  bache- 
lor butter  is  good  enough  for  them?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  bachelor  who  can  not  look  out  for  his  interests  and 
find  what  he  wants  to  eat,  by  changing  boarding  houses  or  otherwise, 
had  better  get  married  and  get  a  wife  to  take  care  of  him.  I  am  speak- 
ing from  the  standpoint  of  the  bachelor. 

To  continue,  I  have  seen  the  package,  branded  according  to  instruc- 
tions, handed  back  by  the  customer  for  rewrapping  on  account  of  the 
stamp  showing  on  top  of  the  wrapped  package. 

Some  time  ago  one  of  the  Cleveland  (Ohio)  justices  of  the  peace 
decided  that  this  provision  that  each  package  should  have  on  its  upper 
side  a  label  on  which  the  word  "oleomargarine"  was  printed  did  not 
merely  mean  that  the  paper,  the  wrapper,  should  be  stamped,  but  that 
it  must  have  a  separate,  distinct  label — a  label  printed  and  stuck  on 
the  top  of  the  package.  That  ruling  was  attempted  to  be  complied 
with,  with  the  result  that  the  keeper  of  the  market  raised  quite  an 
objection  in  regard  to  these  labels  being  so  used,  because  the  customer, 
in  the  furtherance  of  that  false  pride,  perhaps — that  pride  which  exists 
in  the  poor  and  the  rich  alike,  as  a  result  of  which  they  do  not  want  to 
be  advertised  as  buying  anything  but  the  highest  priced  in  the  market, 
even  if  they  are  getting  better  goods  for  less  money — would  tear  that 
label  off  and  throw  it  down  in  the  market  house ;  so  that  it  was  quite 
a  great  deal  of  extra  trouble  for  the  market-house  keeper  while  this 
system  was  enforced. 


298  OLEOMARGARINE. 

I  want  to  say  further  in  regard  to  these  stamps,  and  the  fact  that  the 
law  regarding  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  for  butter  is  complied  with  in 
the  State  of  Ohio,  that  in  all  the  trials  with  which  I  have  ever  had  any- 
thing to  do  there  has  never  been  a  package  of  oleomargarine  produced 
in  the  justice's  court  that  did  not  have  the  three  stamps — the  stamp  on 
the  wooden  package,  the  stamp  on  the  parchment,  and  the  stamp  on  the 
outside  wrapper.  It  was  always  there. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Schell,  I  have  to  go  to  another  com- 
mittee; but  before  I  go  I  will  state  that  in  a  consultation  with  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  it  has  been  deemed  advisable  to  extend  the 
hearing  until  and  including  Thursday,  and  that  that  will  be  final. 

Senator  MONEY.  Has  there  been  any  vote  of  the  committee  on  that 
arrangement? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  There  has  been  no  vote  of  the  committee. 

Senator  MONEY.  There  will  have  to  be  before  there  is  any  determina- 
tion of  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  we  will  be  obliged  to  get  the  full 
committee  here. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  all  right;  but  we  can  not  cut  these  hearings 
short  when  a  lot  of  men  have  come  here  to  be  heard,  and  have  not  yet 
had  an  opportunity  to  be  heard. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  \vill  state,  Senator,  that  last  week  the 
chairman,  who  was  presiding  during  the  morning  hearings,  thought 
that  arrangements  should  be  made  so  as  to  close  the  hearings  on 
to-morrow.  That  is  the  10th,  I  believe. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  understood  what  the  chairman  thought;  but  the 
committee  have  taken  no  action. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  he  made  a  statement  here  to  the  effect 
that  that  would  be  the  situation  here,  and  we  have  been  proceeding 
upon  that  hypothesis. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  have  not  proceeded  upon  that  hypothesis  at  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Just  a  moment.  Others  have  come  since 
then  to  be  heard;  and  Senator  Proctor,  who  has  just  left  the  room, 
stated  to  me  that  he  thought  we  had  better  extend  the  hearings  until 
Thursday,  including  Thursday,  allowing  the  butter  people  to  close  on 
that  day.  Of  course  the  committee  can  do  as  it  pleases. 

Senator  MONET.  I  want  to  say,  as  one  member  of  the  committee,  that 
I  object  to  any  closing  of  the  debate  at  present;  and  I  do  not  see  any 
particular  reason  why  the  butter  people,  having  had  all  the  time  they 
wanted  here,  should  close  the  debate,  either.  So  far  as  I  can  under- 
stand, there  is  nothing  to  entitle  them  to  the  last  day  in  court.  In  my 
opinion  they  have  not  shown  any  case  at  all;  and  I  shall  insist  that 
the  men  who  oppose  this  bill  shall  have  an  equal  hearing  to  the  very 
last  moment  of  the  argument. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Senator,  you  will  pardon  me  if  I  make  the 
objection  that  I  have  been  here  at  all  the  hearings,  except  part  of  the 
time  yesterday,  and  that  I  am  quite  safe  in  saying  that  the  opponents 
of  this  bill  have  occupied  fully  three-fourths  of  the  time. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  may  be.  Now,  I  will  tell  you  what  we  will  do. 
We  will  hear  the  butter  men  first  and  let  the  other  people  close. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  butter  men,  I  think,  opened  the 
case  here  by  making  some  statements ;  and  it  was  generally  understood, 
and  has  been  understood  all  the  way  through,  that  they  should  close 
the  case. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  have  not  had  any  such  understanding  as  a  member 
of  the  committee.  My  understanding  was  that  they  were  to  have  equal 


OLEOMARGARINE.  299 

rights  before  the  committee,  which  they  are  entitled  to  have.  Both  sides 
are  entitled  to  that.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  asking  a  little  too 
much  for  them  to  want  both  the  opening  and  the  closing  of  the  case. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  gentleman  who  has  the  floor  at  the 
present  time  had  all  day  yesterday,  part  of  the  day  before,  and  is  going 
on  this  morning  enlightening  us  with  the  facts  on  his  side. 

Senator  MONEY.  Yes;  and  he  is  making  a  very  good  speech,  too. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Schell  did  not  occupy  all  day  yes- 
terday. When  you  were  absent  yesterday  afternoon  some  labor  people 
from  Pennsylvania  spoke  for  part  of  the  afternoon. 

Senator  FOSTER.  But  we  must  draw  these  hearings  to  a  close  some 
time.  It  seems  to  me  we  are  getting  about  all  the  information  there  is 
on  this  subject.  I  do  not  know  that  we  have  had  very  much  repetition, 
but  we  have  had  some. 

Senator  MONEY.  As  far  as  that  is  concerned,  I  have  made  the  sug- 
gestion to  the  cotton-seed  oil  people,  who  are  particularly  my  constit- 
uents, that  they  might  present  their  case 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  They  are  here  now  and  are  ready  to  go  on 
as  soon  as  this  gentleman  closes.  There  are  four  of  them  who  desire 
to  be  heard.  We  wanted  to  give  them  the  balance  of  to-day  and  all  of 
to-morrow,  and  then  to  allow  the  butter  people  to  close  on  their  side. 
That  was  the  suggestion  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee  as  he  went 
out. 

Senator  MONEY.  Do  the  butter  people  think  it  is  any  particular 
advantage  to  have  the  closing?  If  so,  it  ought  not  to  be  allowed  them. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  been  generally  conceded  to  them,  I 
think,  by  the  opponents  of  the  bill.  These  hearings,  as  I  will  state  to 
the  Senator,  have  been  rather  irregular. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  know  they  have;  and  I  have  been  rather  irregular 
myself,  because  during  the  afternoon  sessions  I  have  been  compelled  to 
be  up  in  the  Senate  Chamber  most  of  the  time. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  If  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  will  permit 
me,  I  will  call  attention  to  the  statement  of  Mr.  Grout,  made  at  the 
opening  of  the  hearings,  in  which  he  says  this : 

I  simply  want  to  say,  gentlemen,  that  with  this  testimony  the  friends  of  the  bill 
submit  their  case  and  give  the  field  to  those  who  are  opposed  to  the  measure. 

Senator  Hausbrough  replied: 
It  is  understood  that  Governor  Hoard  is  present  and  desires  to  be  heard. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Hoard  spoke.  And  until  the  hearings  had  progressed 
for  several  days  there  was  no  intimation  that  the  butter  men  desired 
to  be  heard  any  further. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  object  to  their  closing  the  case? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Not  in  the  least. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  have  only  been  contending  for  what  I  consider 
to  be  fair  play. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Before  Mr.  Schell  proceeds,  I  would  like  to  ask 
the  chairman  a  question.  Are  the  cotton-seed  oil  people  here,  the  par- 
ties Mr.  Culberson  spoke  of  yesterday  ?  Did  he  not  see  you  about  them  I 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes:  he  said  he  had  so  me  constituents  here. 
I  do  not  know  whether  they  are  from  his  State  or  not. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Will  you  permit  me  just  one  moment?  Mr.  Peters  is 
here  from  Texas,  representing  the  oil-mill  interests  of  that  State.  He 
came  here  in  obedience  to  a  telegram  from  Senator  Culberson,  after 
haying  had  an  interview,  as  I  understood,  with  Senator  Proctor,  it 
being  understood  that  they  would  not  be  heard  later  than  Wednesday. 


300  OLEOMARGARINE. 

He  is  having  some  figures  prepared  here  in  the  Agricultural  Depart- 
ment, and  will  not  be  able  to  obtain  them  before  4  o'clock. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  To-day? 

Mr.  JELKE.  To-day;  yes,  sir.  I  have  just  seen  Senator  Culberson 
in  regard  to  the  matter.  He  will  be  here  in  a  few  moments.  He  said 
he  spoke  to  several  members  of  the  committee,  and  thought  there 
would  be  no  objection  to  his  being  heard  to-morrow. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  has  not  taken  action  on  the 
matter;  but  it  has  been  suggested  by  the  chairman,  whom  we  all  delight 
to  support  in  matters  of  this  kind,  because  of  his  great  wisdom,  that 
the  hearings  be  held  open  until  Thursday,  and  that  to-morrow  be  given 
to  the  cotton-seed  oil  people. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  understand  that  there  are  four  repre- 
sentatives of  that  industry  here. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Yes,  sir.  I  do  not  know  their  number.  The  statistics 
which  one  of  the  gentlemen  wanted  are  being  prepared  now  in  the 
Department  of  Agriculture,  and  he  will  be  ready  to  present  them  to- 
morrow morning. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  That  is  what  they  asked  for  in  the  first  place. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Yes,  sir;  he  came  here  in  pursuance  of  that  arrange- 
ment, and  he  can  not  possibly  present  his  statement  any  earlier,  if  it 
meets  the  approval  of  the  committee. 

Senator  MONEY.  There  is  another  gentleman  here  by  the  name  of 
Culbertson,  too. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Yes;  he  is  in  the  room  now. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  would  suggest  that  we  go  on  now. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Shall  we  go  on,  then,  with  the  understand- 
ing that  the  cotton  industry  and  others  of  the  oleomargarine  side  of 
this  case  conclude  their  testimony  to-morrow,  and  that  on  Thursday 
the  butter  people  shall  close  the  case?  Can  we  get  consent  to  that 
proposition  1 

Senator  MONEY.  I  do  not  want  to  compel  the  cotton-seed  oil  people 
to  go  on  to-day.  If  they  have  more  to  say  than  we  said  to-day  I  think 
they  ought  to  be  heard.  Still,  if  they  think  that  that  is  enough  time 
for  them  it  makes  no  difference  to  me. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Schell,  who  has  been  speaking  for 
quite  awhile  (as  I  stated  awhile  ago),  announces  that  he  will  be 
through  now  in  a  few  minutes.  I  assume  that  the  remainder  of  to-day 
and  the  whole  of  to-morrow  can  be  devoted  to  the  hearing  of  the 
cotton-seed  oil  interest. 

Senator  MONEY.  Whenever  they  get  through  I  am  quite  willing 
that  they  shall  stop. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee:  I 
think  I  am  the  only  one  speaking  against  this  bill  who  has  said  any- 
thing about  conceding  the  right  of  the  friends  of  the  bill  to  close.  I 
have  already  said  that  when  one  side  opens  the  case  and  then  claims 
the  right  to  close,  the  person  speaking  on  that  side  must  present  their 
full  case  in  the  beginning,  and  must  in  the  end  confine  their  testimony, 
or  what  they  have  to  offer,  to  rebuttal  of  what  the  other  side  have  had 
to  say.  At  the  same  time  I  said  that  if  they  introduced  any  new  evi- 
dence or  any  new  features  in  the  case  whatever,  we  would  claim  it,  not 
as  a  privilege,  but  as  a  right,  and  one  which  we  thought  the  committee 
would  not  deny  us,  in  view  of  the  fairness  it  has  shown  in  the  past,  to 
be  heard  in  rebuttal  of  any  new  argument  which  they  advanced. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Under  those  circumstances  I  can  not  very 


well  g 

aafviafi 


OLEOMARGARINE.  301 


well  see  the  end  of  this  hearing,  because  if  we  wait  until  everyone  is 
satisfied  that  his  last  word  is  final  we  will  never  get  through. 

Senator  MONEY.  We  can  say,  though,  that  the  last  word  shall  be 
divided  equally.  We  can  say  that 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  can  say,  of  course,  exactly 
what  it  pleases. 

Senator  MONEY.  But  is  not  that  fair?     Is  it  not  fair  to  say  so? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  should  prefer  to  have  it  before  the  coin- 
mfttee  in  the  form  of  a  motion. 

Senator  MONEY.  Very  well;  we  will  put  it  before  them  in  the  form 
of  a  motion. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  can  be  done  when  we  get  the  full  com- 
mittee here. 

(Senator  Foster  thereupon  took  the  chair.) 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Senator  Foster).  Mr.  Schell,  you  may 
proceed. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  in  support  of  my  contention  that  probably  all 
over  the  country,  as  in  Cincinnati  according  to  my  positive  knowledge, 
oleomargarine  is  not  to  any  extent  sold  for  butter,  f  want  to  quote 
Representative  Bailey  at  page  108  of  the  House  hearings.  He  said 
there : 

Let  me  give  a  little  personal  experience  on  that  subject.  I  have  spent  parts  of  two 
days  in  this  market  here.  I  have  made  two  trips  down  through  it  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  information  on  that  very  point.  I  went  down  there  absolutely  incognito, 
and  I  tried  my  best  to  buy  oleomargarine  for  butter.  I  went  to  this  place  and  to 
that,  and  did  my  best  to  do  it  without  their  knowing  anything  about 

Representative  LAMB.  What  did  you  ask  for? 

Representative  BAILEY.  I  asked  for  butter.  I  would  say,  "  What  do  you  sell  your 
best  creamery  butter  for?"  "Thirty-five  and  40  cents."  "WThat  have  you  got 
some  other  grade  for?"  They  would  say  that  they  had  a  cheaper  grade  down  to 
28  cents,  and  I  think  the  lowest  butter  I  know  of  or  had  priced  to  me  was  25  cents. 
When  it  got  below  that  it  was  oleomargarine  or  butterine  every  time. 

Now,  I  was  unable  in  that  market  to  buy  a  single  pound  of  it,  and  I  could  not  get 
a  single  man  to  admit  to  me  down  there  that  it  was  sold — not  a  single  man.  Now,  I 
want  you  to  go  down  there,  Mr.  Lamb.  I  will  tell  you  what  I  will  do.  I  will  bet 
you  a  5-dollar  bill  that,  if  you  choose  to  try  it,  you  can  not  get  one  of  those  men  to 
sell  oleomargarine  to  you  for  butter. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Was  that  in  the  market  here? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  in  the  city  of  Washington? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes ;  that  was  in  the  city  of  Washington. 

During  the  holidays  I  took  dinner  one  day  with  Dr.  W.  A.  Young, 
at  Dayton,  Ky.  At  the  same  dinner  table  were  his  father-in-law  and 
his  brother-in-law,  both  doctors.  I  recognized  oleomargarine  on  the 
table,  and  I  made  some  comment  about  it.  His  wife  flushed  up,  but  Dr. 
Young  said,  "  Of  course  it  is  oleo."  I  said,  "  What  do  you  buy  it 
for?"  "For  oleomargarine."  "What  do  you  call  for?"  "  We  called 
for  butter  and  thought  we  would  get  this,  according  to  reports ;  but 
we  found  out  that  we  had  to  call  for  oleomargarine  in  order  to  get  it." 

"You  did  get  butter,  then,  when  you  called  for  it?"  "Yes,  and  we 
got  a  very  unsatisfactory  product."  I  said,  "  Where  do  you  get  your 
oleo?"  "We  get  it  at  one  of  B.  H.  Kroger's  stores."  Those  are  the 
stores  operated  by  the  gentleman  whose  advertisement  appeared  in  the 
Cincinnati  Times-Star,  and  to  which  I  called  your  attention  yesterday. 

Now,  in  regard  to  this  hotel  talk  about  white  butter,  and  so  forth. 
I  travel  back  and  forth  over  the  country  quite  a  good  deal.  I  am  in 
Chicago,  I  suppose,  two  or  three  times  a  month;  in  New  York  fre- 
quently, and  in  Washington,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Cleveland,  and 
other  large  cities,  and  I  have  never  as  yet  been  given  uncolored  butter. 


302  OLEOMARGARINE. 

I  aim  to  stop  at  the  best  hotels,  or  at  least  the  highest  priced.  My 
clients  pay  the  bills,  and  I  have  no  object  in  going  anywhere  else.  In 
New  York  I  stop  at  the  Waldorf-Astoria,  and  I  know  their  butter  is 
fine  butter,  creamery  butter,  but  it  is  colored  artificially.  On  my  last 
trip  here  before  the  holidays  I  stopped  at  the  Arlington.  There  we 
had  butter  artificially  colored.  I  am  stopping  now  at  the  Shoreham, 
where  I  get  butter  artificially  colored — highly  colored.  And  that  has 
been  my  universal  experience  in  all  the  cities  which  I  have  visited.  m 

Now,  this  is  my  conclusion  on  this  phase  of  the  subject:  No  factory, 
through  me,  or  in  any  case  in  which  I  was  engaged,  or  with  which  I 
was  connected,  has  ever  paid  a  fine,  or  defended  a  dealer  for  selling 
oleomargarine  for  butter.  And  I  want  to  say  that  as  far  as  1  know 
(and  I  am  in  position  to  know  pretty  accurately)  there  is  not  a  factory 
in  existence  which  defends  the  dealers  for  selling  oleomargarine  for 
butter,  assertions  of  the  friends  of  the  bill  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing. They  do  not  show  any  instances  ;  and  I  defy  them  to  show 
any  instance  where  it  has  been  done. 

The  factory  says  to  the  dealer,  "  If  you  break  the  law  you  must  pay 
the  penalty.  If  the  violation  is  mine,  through  use  of  color  or  in  any 
other  way  my  fault,  then  I  will  hold  you  harmless.  I  do  not  answer 
for  you,  but  I  answer  for  myself."  And  what  else  could  the  factories 
do?  I  do  not  know  that  they  all  do  that;  but  my  people  do  it.  If  they 
break  the  law  they  pay  the  penalty. 

The  Ohio  laws  are  all  right,  except  the  color  clause,  and  the  one  as 
to  informing  the  purchaser.  The  latter  I  think  is  idiotic — the  "  inform 
the  purchaser "  part,  flaunting  in  a  purchaser's  face  the  suggestion, 
"  You  are  too  poor  to  buy  butter;  consequently  you  have  got  to  take 
something  that  is  less  costly." 

The  color  clause  is  unjust;  and  with  these  exceptions,  I  say,  gentle- 
men, the  laws  are  obeyed  and  are  enforced.  I  think  the  Department 
misses  but  few  dealers  who  are  guilty  of  any  actual  fraud,  and  it 
sometimes  arrests  the  innocent.  I  have  known  that  to  be  the  case.  I 
admit  that  the  color  laws  are  hard  to  enforce.  In  a  case  recently  tried 
by  a  justice  without  a  jury  in  Cincinnati,  he  found  the  defendant 
guilty,  but  is  said  to  have  remarked  that  he  considered  it  an  unjust 
law,  but  could  not  overrule  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 
But  they  say  they  do  not  want  a  color  prohibition.  They  merely  want 
us  to  u  shinny  on  our  own  side,"  so  to  speak.  If  so,  where  is  the  hard- 
ship of  nonenforcernent  of  the  color  law,  so  long  as  the  oleo-for-butter 
laws  are  enforced  ? 

So  much,  gentlemen,  for  their  alleged  purpose  in  this  bill.  The  bill, 
like  oleomargarine,  like  butter,  is  permeated  through  and  through  with 
the  false  color;  and  then  they  cover  it  up  on  the  outside  with  a  coat  of 
shellac.  If  the  purpose  is  what  we  belive  the  actual  purpose  to  be,  to 
destroy  the  production  of  colored  oleomargarine,  why  not  say  so? 
Why  are  they  not  honest  about  it?  Why  are  they  not  fair? 

How  much  better  are  they,  when  they  come  here  asking  you  to  pass 
a  bill  under  a  false  name— a  bill  which  is  not  what  it  purports  to  be,  a 
bill  which  they  concede  could  never  stand  a  constitutional  test  for  a 
minute  except  under  false  colors — than  the  man  who  sells  oleomarga- 
rine for  butter  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding  his  customers?  And  how 
infinitely  worse  are  they  than  the  man  guilty  of  a  mere  innocent  decep- 
tion, not  deception  at  all,  but  an  innocent  sale  where  he  knows  that 
the  purchaser  wants  oleomargarine,  although  he  says  butter  in  order 
to  conceal  his  poverty  from  bystanders. 

Let  them  name  the  bill  properly.    Let  it  stand  for  what  it  is.    Do 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  303 

not  cheat  the  nation.  If  they  seek  to  destroy  one  industry  for  the  bene- 
fit of  another,  or  to  foster  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  another,  or  to 
regulate  prices,  let  them  tell  the  truth  about  it  and  name  the  bill 
accordingly.  But  they  do  not  do  it. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  eft'ect  of  this  bill 

Senator  MONEY.  Excuse  me.  Have  they  not  said  the  bill  was  to 
destroy  oleomargarine?  Has  not  that  been  stated? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Senator,  I  have  been  trying  to  get  them  on  record  on 
that  subject  ever  since  they  began. 

Senator  MONEY.  Was  not  somebody  on  record  at  the  hearings  before 
the  House  on  that  point? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  They  came  here  and  disputed  it.  They  said  it  was  a 
mistake,  and  that  the  minority  members  of  the  committee  were  wrong. 

Now,  gentlemen,  whatever  the  purpose  of  this  bill — and  we  claim  the 
purpose  is  to  destroy  the  industry — whatever  purpose  they  intend,  it 
will  destroy  the  oleomargarine  industry.  The  official  condemnation  of 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  stamped  upon  this  product  by  a  bill 
similar  to  the  Grout  bill,  will  kill  the  export  trade  not  only  of  the  prod- 
uct but  of  all  that  enters  into  it.  That  has  been  gone  into  in  detail. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  main  thing  to  be  urged  about  this  matter  is  the 
fact  that  the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  is  caught  between  the  upper 
and  the  nether  millstones.  With  the  aid  of  the  Grout  bill  he  is  ground 
in  between  the  State  and  the  Federal  laws.  As  the  matter  stands  he 
can  say  to  the  State  which  is  enforcing  an  unjust  law,  "Prove  it." 
There  he  has  some  show,  some  chance.  But  according  to  this  Grout 
bill  he  must  make  an  accurate  sworn  statement  to  the  Government, 
under  penalty  of  an  absolute  confiscation  of  his  factory,  his  product, 
his  equipment  and  everything,  and  fine  and  imprisonment  added.  This 
sworn  statement  is  a  plea  of  guilty  of  a  violation  of  the  State  law.  They 
say,  "We  are  willing  that  you  should  sell  it  for  what  it  is."  Some  of 
them  have  said  that,  in  a  half-hearted  sort  of  manner.  They  say,  "  We 
are  willing."  I  think  the  great  bulk  of  the  people  who  are  alleged  to 
be  represented  here  (but  I  claim  their  true  sentiments  are  not  repre- 
sented here),  those  who  have  at  the  instigation  of  lobbyists  and  others 
been  writing  letters  to  the  Senators  on  this  matter,  while  they  are  not 
by  their  representatives  definitely  on  record  here,  are  too  fair-minded 
to  crush  an  industry  out  of  existence  and  confiscate  our  property  with- 
out giving  us  anything  for  it.  I  think  the  majority  of  the  people  who 
are  opposed  to  the  alleged  method  of  traffic  of  oleomargarine  are  will- 
ing that  it  should  be  sold  on  the  right  side  of  the  fence.  That  is  all 
we  want.  I  think  they  are  willing  it  should  be  done.  I  think  every 
fair-minded  citizen  must  concede  that  it  ought  to  be  done.  And  yet, 
according  to  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  it  can  not  be  done.  Our  factory 
there  in  Cincinnati  must  close  down,  after  just  expending  $18,000  for  a 
plant,  and  I  do  not  know  how  much  more  for  other  equipment,  to  get 
ready  to  do  business.  They  must  quit.  Their  sworn  statement  which 
they  must  make  to  the  United  States  Government  would  condemn  them. 
They  would  thus  plead  guilty  of  a  violation  of  the  State  laws.  They 
simply  can  not  make  this  product.  They  can  not  make  it  for  export  or 
on  order  of  the  consumer.  They  must  close  the  factory. 

The  supporters  of  the  bill  say  that  the  10-cent  tax  raises  the  price  of 
oleomargarine  so  that  it  is  on  the  same  basis  of  the  price  of  butter.  It 
does  not  merely  raise  the  price.  In  32  States  of  the  Union  it  abso- 
lutely prohibits  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomargarine,  colored. 
They  can  not  even  manufacture  it  to  send  to  a  State  where  it  is  all 
right  to  sell  it,  colored  or  otherwise;  and  those  32  States  represent 


304  OLEOMARGARINE. 

four-fifths,  as  they  say,  of  the  population  of  the  Union;  and  yet  they 
pretend  to  defend  their  position  by  saying  that  they  only  want  the 
thing  equalized.  Gentlemen,  they  do  not  want  it  equalized.  They  are 
not  playing  fair.  They  are  not  capable  of  playing  fair. 

And,  gentlemen,  it  will  not  help  the  people  they  purport  to  represent. 
They  have  not  shown  that  we  hurt  them.  The  testimony  shows  that 
butter  commands  a  higher  price  now  than  it  has  for  twenty-live  years; 
that  milk  is  higher  than  it  has  ever  been.  Not  only  have  they  not 
shown  that  we  have  hurt  them,  but  they  have  not  shown  how  the  pro- 
posed legislation  would  help  them. 

They  fail  entirely  in  the  claim  which  they  have  made  before  you. 
They  have  not  even  shown  any  considerable  bona  fide  country  call  for 
this  legislation.  We  analyzed  that  claim  yesterday.  We  analyzed  the 
6,000,000  or  5,000,000  down  to  less  than  30,000,  and  all  of  them  could 
not  be  induced  to  put  up  50  cents  apiece;  and  we  do  not  know  the  exact 
sentiments  of  those  who  did  put  up  the  50  cents  apiece.  They  are  not 
on  record  here.  Their  representative  is  not  on  record  definitely.  Every 
pressure  (we  will  not  say  argument,  we  can  not  say  argument)  brought 
to  bear  has  borne  the  earmarks  of  some  politician  or  publisher  who 
makes  a  nefarious — no,  a  precarious — living  through  creating  dissatisfac- 
tion among  the  farmers  and  getting  employed  to  relieve  their  wants. 
Even  the  Philadelphia  commission  men  who  appeared  were  in  leading 
strings,  with  an  extra  string  attached  to  their  leader  in  the  presence  of 
the  author  of  the  bill,  who  came  in  and  sat  down  there ;  and  when  the 
leader  was  going  to  put  his  people  on  record  he  was  coached  by  Eepre- 
sentative  Grout.  He  asked  questions,  both  suggestive  and  leading 
questions,  of  the  witness  for  his  side,  and  then  told  him  what  he  really 
wanted  him  to  say,  and  he  said  it. 

When  we  analyze  "the  united  dairy  sentiment  of  the  nation,"  as 
alleged  in  the  outset  in  the  House  hearing,  we  invariably  end  up  with 
Mr.  Knight,  Governor  Hoard,  and  General  Grout.  They  remind  me  of 
that  well-known  story  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  which  he  told  three  persist- 
ent office  seekers  that  they  reminded  him  of  the  Sunday-school  boy 
who  was  reading  the  chapter  in  the  Bible  about  the  Hebrew  children 
and  the  fiery  furnace.  He  had  repeatedly  stumbled  over  the  three 
names,  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego;  and  finally  he  broke  down, 
and  said,  "Well,  here  are  those  three  rascally  fellows  again!" 
[Laughter.]  And  in  whatever  way  we  turn,  we  run  up  against  this 
same  trio.  We  can  not  get  around  them.  They  are  what  is  alleged  to 
be  the  "united  dairy  sentiment  of  the  nation;"  and  they  have  not 
shown  their  credentials  to  this  committee. 

But  that  is  not  our  main  contention.  Although  they  have  demanded 
our  property  without  price  or  process  of  law,  and  have  not  shown  why 
we  should  give  it  up,  or  what  good  it  would  do  them  if  they  did,  nor 
have  they  really  tried  to  produce  arguments.  They  say,  "  We  are 
backed  by  5,000,000  farmers.  Give  it  to  us,  or  we  will  turn  them  loose 
on  you  in  your  next  campaign ! " 

They  employ  this  alleged  army  as  advance  skirmishers,  to  show  their 
supposed  mightiness,  by  having  letters  and  telegrams  galore  sent  to 
members  of  your  honorable  body.  Such  methods  should  receive  the 
censure  they  deserve;  and  the  gentlemen  should  be  shown  that  such 
methods,  like  packing  stock  butter,  belong  to  a  past  age. 

The  present  laws  are  sufficient  if  enforced,  and  they  are  capable  of 
enforcement.  That  is  shown  by  their  own  people,  their  own  testimony. 
But  that  is  not  reason  enough.  We  want  the  best  possible  legislation. 
The  substitute  bill  will  do  what  it  is  claimed  is  wanted.  The  factories 


OLEOMARGARINE.  305 

want  the  same  result.  The  mills  and  ranches,  and  dairies  and  cream- 
eries, and  packing  houses  that  supply  the  oleomargarine  factories  do 
not  care.  The  fair-minded  citizen  can  not  object.  So,  let  us  have  the 
substitute  bill — not  because  we  want  it,  or  anyone  wants  it,  but  because 
it  a  wise  and,  probably,  a  legitimate  piece  of  legislation. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Schell,  excuse  me.  Mr.  Tompkins,  of  Charlotte, 
N.  C.,  is  here  this  morning,  and  can  not  be  here  this  afternoon,  as  he 
leaves  at  3.  We  are  quite  anxious  that  he  should  appear.  Can  you 
give  way  to  him? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  will  finish  in  five  minutes. 

Mr.  MILLER.  All  right. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  am  better  satisfied  to  have  Mr.  Schell  finish,  because 
I  am  convinced  that  he  is  doing  good  work. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Let  us  have  the  present  speaker  conclude  his 
argument. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  go  on,  Mr.  Schell. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  want  to  say  that  the  only  substantial  difference 
between  the  substitute  bill  and  the  existing  law  is  that  the  manufac- 
turer is  compelled  to  put  up  his  product  in  1  and  2  pound  packages, 
imprinted,  wrapped,  and  stamped  at  the  factory,  which  can  not  be 
broken  until  they  go  to  the  consumer.  That,  you  will  understand,  does 
what  I  have  claimed.  It  puts  fraud  practically  out  of  the  question. 
And  the  only  point  in  that  bill  about  which  they  have  raised  any  ques- 
tion is  this  sentence:  "That  any  number  of  such  original  stamped 
packages  may  be  put  up  by  the  manufacturers  in  crates,  boxes,"  etc. 
They  object  to  the  word  " original"  as  bringing  in  the  "original 
package." 

Now,  for  my  part — and  I  think  I  can  speak  for  all  on  that  point — it 
is  not  the  intention  to  put  that  word  in  there  for  the  purpose  of  making 
the  law  different  from  what  it  is,  or  taking  any  undue  advantage  of 
any  "original  package"  decision,  and  we  are  willing,  or  I  am  willing 
that  that  word  may  be  changed  so  that  it  may  not  apparently  designate 
these  packages  as  original  packages,  although  the  mere  fact  that  the 
word  appears  here  does  not  make  them  original  packages  any  more 
than  the  law  itself  would  make  them  original  packages  without  that 
word. 

I  had  intended  to  speak  upon  the  Grout  bill  at  length  and  show  the 
fraud  upon  the  face  of  it,  but  I  think  it  is  so  evident  that  I  do  not  need 
to  touch  upon  it  all.  Besides,  the  attention  of  the  committee  has  been 
called  to  almost  every  feature  of  it. 

Another  good  reason  against  the  Grout  bill  is  that  it  totally  fails  to 
do  anything  more  than  reduce  the  tax  on  oleomargarine  If  cents  per 
pound.  If  anyone  wants  to  take  advantage  of  defects  and  violate  the 
spirit  and  not  the  legal  meaning  of  the  statute — I  say  "if,"  for  I  know 
of  no  one  in  the  business  who  would  not  try  to  obey  the  spirit  and  the 
letter  of  any  act  of  Congress.  My  clients,  at  least,  are  law-abiding 
citizens,  and  would  probably  want  to  obtain  the  repeal  of  the  statute  by 
its  strict  enforcement — the  best  way  to  guarantee  the  repeal  of  any 
unjust,  unfair,  iniquitous  legislation.  However,  allow  me  to  retire  for 
a  moment  from  my  capacity  as  attorney  for  a  contending  interest,  from 
my  position  as  a  witness  for  the  integrity  of  a  nation,  and  give  my 
opinion  as  a  lawyer  with  some  conceded  ability  on  technical  interpre- 
tations, and  say  that  this  so-called  Grout  bill  would  no  more  stand  the 
technical  test  than  a  snow  ball  would  keep  its  proportions  in  perdi- 
tion. [Laughter.]  Ben  Butler  must  have  had  a  bill  of  this  kind  in 
view  when  he  said  he  could  drive  a  four-horse  team  through  any  stat 
S.  Kep.  2043 20 


306  OLEOMARGAKINE. 

ute  that  was  ever  put  on  the  books.  This  is  that  kind  of  a  bill;  and 
in  this  statement  I  am  not  referring  to  a  constitutional  test.  The  bill 
fails  of  its  alleged  object  regardless  of  the  Supreme  Court.  The  bill 
makes  business  for  lawyers  and  lobbyists,  but  all  others  suffer,  includ 
ing  the  people  who  are  supposed  to  be  interested  in  the  passage  of  this 
law — "the  dairymen  of  the  nation." 

But  to  return  to  my  clients  and  my  country :  The  bill  is  not  fair  on 
either  side.  I  have  wondered  if  it  was  drawn  by  the  lawyers  who 
brought  forty  cases  under  the  repealed  statute  in  Chicago,  or  by  one 
who  knows  his  business.  The  enactment  of  this  bill  would  mean,  in 
my  opinion,  that  the  same  fight  would  be  fought  over  next  session. 
But,  then,  there  are  24,600  farmers  at  50  cents  to  $1,000  per  head! 

Now,  as  to  the  main  question,  its  legality  or  otherwise:  What  is  it — 
good,  bad,  or  expedient?  Certainly  not  the  former;  and  assuredly  no 
circumstance  has  been  shown  to  justify  a  bad  measure  on  the  grounds 
of  expediency.  In  this  case  the  ends  do  not  justify  the  means. 

Is  the  bill  police,  revenue,  or  repressive  legislation  ?  If  police  legis- 
lation, Congress  has  no  power  to  enact  it.  It  is  not  claimed.  If  repres- 
sive legislation,  Congress  has  no  power  to  enact  it.  That  is  not  claimed. 
If  for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue,  it  fails  of  its  purpose.  See  the 
testimony  of  Commissioner  Wilson.  See  the  concession  by  Governor 
Hoard,  who  admits  of  record  (p.  7,  Senate  hearing)  that  the  one-fourth 
of  a  cent  per  pound  tax  is  scarcely  enough  to  police  the  bill,  and  will  not 
bring  in  any  revenue. 

But  it  is  repressive  legislation,  alleged  to  be  such.  Governor  Hoard 
says  (p.  2,  House  committee) :  "  In  plain  words,  this  is  repressive  legis- 
lation," justified  by  police  pretension,  and  attempted  to  be  legally  clothed 
by  a  revenue  cloak. 

Gentlemen,  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  decisions  have  been 
ably  argued  by  my  brothers  Gardner  and  Springer  and  by  others,  with 
different  conclusions.  I  need  not  comment  upon  them.  We  do  not 
need  the  interpretation  of  any  court.  We  who  oppose  this  bill  are  con- 
vinced that  the  bill  is  wrong,  is  unfair,  is  dishonest,  is  illegal.  The 
friends  of  the  bill  have  the  insolence  to  admit  of  record  its  dishonesty, 
its  illegality.  They  venture  to  question  both  the  intelligence  and  the 
integrity  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  They  come  here  and 
say,  "We  will  admit  you  can  not  openly  exercise  police  power  in 
a  State.  We  admit  that  you  can  not  exact  repressive  legislation  and 
call  it  so;  but  you  can,  and  for  us  you  will  and  must,  pass  this  act  as  a 
revenue  measure.  You  must  pass,  under  a  false  name,  a  law  to  pre- 
vent the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  from  giving  his  product  a  color 
which  has  been  given  it  from  the  beginning." 

Then,  while  asking  you  to  do  an  unfair  thing  for  them  and  stultify 
yourselves  before  the  nation  and  the  whole  world,  they  are  not  playing 
fair  with  you.  They  claim  that  they  only  want  to  keep  oleomargarine 
on  its  own  merits;  and  yet  the  only  result  of  an  enforcement  of  the 
act  would  be  an  absolute  prohibition  of  the  manufacture  of  the  colored 
article,  if  not  of  the  article  itself,  arid  they  know  it. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  talked  long.     I  hope  not  needlessly. 

I  would  have  liked  to  have  summed  up  all  that  has  been  said,  briefly; 
but  I  will  omit  a  summing  up  of  the  whole  subject. 

But  regardless  of  any  general  summing  up,  the  subject  is  reduced  to 
the  question,  uls  the  bill  right?  Is  it  just?  Is  it  honest?  Is  it  what 
it  purports  to  be?  Is  it  constitutional — colored  or  uncolored?" 

If  so,  consider  it.  But  if  it  is  wrong— if  dishonest— if  class  legisla- 
tion— if  not  what  it  purports  to  be — if  not  a  revenue  measure,  and  a 
wise  one — relegate  it  to  the  oblivion  which  it  so  richly  deserves. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  307 

Gentlemen,  I  thank  you. 

(The  following  statements  of  Mr.  Dolan  and  Mr.  Pierce  were  pre- 
sented on  Monday,  January  7,  and  are  inserted  at  this  point  in  order 
to  preserve  the  continuity  of  Mr.  Schell's  remarks:) 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  allow  me  to  introduce  Mr.  Patrick  Dolan, 
president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers'  Association,  40,000  strong,  and 
Mr.  John  Pierce,  representing  the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron 
and  Steel  Workers,  15,000  strong.  The  people  they  represent  would 
indicate  that  they  have  sufficient  interest  at  stake  to  entitle  them  to  a 
hearing  before  this  committee. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  will  be  very  satisfactory  to  hear  the 
gentlemen. 

STATEMENT   OF   PATRICK   DOLAN,  PRESIDENT   OF   THE  UNITED 
MINE   WORKERS'  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  people  whom  I  represent  are  some- 
what interested  in  this  measure,  as  they  are  all  working  people.  Kep- 
resenting  them,  I  have  come  here  and  have  prepared  a  short  statement, 
which  I  will  read : 

The  question  involved  here,  so  far  as  it  affects  the  section  of  country 
from  which  I  come  (western  Pennsylvania)  and  the  people  I  represent, 
despite  the  verbiage  of  the  bill,  seems  to  be  whether  or  not  white  oleo- 
margarine is  good  enough  for  the  workingman  and  consumer,  whose 
needs  demand  a  cheap  and  wholesome  article.  In  former  times,  before 
tbegeneral  introduction  of  oleomargarine  and  the  manufacture  of  cream- 
ery butter,  the  grocers  and  merchants  in  our  section  used  to  have  their 
regular  butter  day.  It  might  occur  on  any  day  with  different  merchants, 
but  when  that  day  was  set  by  any  one  of  them  it  was  an  immovable 
feast — but  such  a  feast !  Almost  any  of  us  can  call  to  mind  the  strange 
collection  of  colors  and  shapes,  accompanied  by  as  many  different  and 
distinct  perfumes  as  ever  emanated  from  the  ancient  and  distinguished 
city  of  Bagdad — the  source  of  a  thousand  and  one  individual  odors. 
The  few  rolls  of  really  palatable  and  passable  butter  were  seized  on  the 
arrival  of  the  consignment  and  stored  away  for  the  pet  customers  (who 
didn't  mind  the  price),  and  the  balance  was  spread  out  in  that  portion 
of  the  establishment  known  as  the-  butter  counter  for  the  inspection 
and  sampling  of  those  who  were  not  so  fortunate  as  to  be  able  to  pay 
the  long  price  or  to  figure  high  in  the  affections  of  the  merchant. 

But  this  is  all  gone  in  our  markets,  I  find,  except  in  a  very  few  iso- 
lated instances.  Two  things  seem  to  find  sale,  namely,  fir«t-class 
creamery  butter  and  oleomargarine.  The  butter  at  present  sells  for 
from  30  to  35  cents,  the  oleomargarine  at  from  2  pounds  for  25  cents  to  20 
cents  per  pound;  and  while  the  latter  all  seems  palatable,  I  have  found 
a  marked  difference  in  the  quality,  which  to  me  accounts  satisfactorily 
for  the  wide  variance  in  price,  viz,  from  12J  cents  per  pound  to  20  cents 
per  pound. 

That  some  oleomargarine  may  be  sold  for  butter  I  do  not  doubt,  but 
I  am  convinced  that  it  is  triflng;  and  to  propose  such  a  measure  as  this 
as  an  alleged  remedy  for  that  is  unfair,  to  my  mind.  This  bill  does  not 
pretend  to  remedy  an  evil,  but  to  exclude  and  prevent  the  sale  of  a 
healthful  product — which  seems  to  have  been  the  real  spirit  of  all  the 
laws  on  the  subject. 

I  am  convinced  that  the  true  intent  of  the  pending  bill  is  to  make  a 
market  for  the  axle-grease  portion  of  the  butter  product,  which  oleo- 
margarine, by  reason  of  its  cheapness  and  wholesomeness,  has  run  out 


308  OLEOMARGARINE. 

of  our  section,  doubtless  into  the  kettles  of  some  soap  works,  which  is 
the  sphere  of  its  real  fitness. 

In  this  age  of  progress  let  us  not  go  backward,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
injustice  it  will  work  to  our  people.  What  moral  right  have  these  but- 
ter people  to  ask  you  to  pass  a  law  that  will  compel  those  of  us  who 
have  only  10  or  15  cents  to  pay  for  a  pound  of  some  spread  for  our 
bread,  to  either  use  white  oleomargarine,  ghastly  in  its  unattractiveness, 
or  to  go  back  to  the  rancid  product  they  foisted  on  us  in  years  gone  by? 
There  is  no  interest  save  theirs  which  would  have  the  sublime  nerve  to 
ask  such  a  thing,  and  none  but  theirs  which  would  have  influence 
enough  to  half  get  it,  as  they  have  done.  It  is  this  sort  of  abuse  of 
legislative  and  governmental  power  that  has  always  been  a  menace  to 
republics  since  republics  were,  and  this  sort  of  folly  that  has  wrecked 
and  ruined  them — since  history  proves  that  they  do  not  always  last. 

I  hope  that  this  committee  and  the  Senate  will  defeat  this  measure. 
It  would  be  a  step  in  a  dangerous  direction.  Many  of  our  individual 
States  have  already  covered  themselves  with  disrepute  by  passing 
crushing  and  unjust  laws,  dictated  by  this  coming  butter  trust,  which 
seeks  to  frighten  and  has  frightened  legislators  by  bawling  u  the 
granger  vote,"  even  to  the  extent  of  overlooking  the  rights  of  the  con- 
sumer, and  the  fact  that  we  are  one  people,  and  entitled  to  justice. 

The  present  United  States  oleomargarine  law  is  unjust,  as  the  2  cents 
per  pound  tax  comes  off  those  least  able  to  bear  it — the  poor.  The 
man  who  has  but  10  or  15  cents  to  pay  for  a  pound  of  oleomargarine 
can  ill  afford  to  pay  a  tax  on  it  of  from  10  to  20  per  cent;  and  since 
that  is  the  case,  how  can  he  afford  to  pay  about  100  per  cent,  as  pro- 
posed by  this  bill,  and  at  the  same  time  have  his  poverty  legislated 
before  his  eyes  and  those  of  his  family  every  time  he  sits  down  to  a 
meal?  We  of  western  Pennsylvania  understand  this,  and  oleo  is  as 
firmly  placed  and  as  staple  with  us  as  sugar.  To  say  that  oleo  could 
be  sold  for  butter,  to  any  extent,  seems  to  us  preposterous.  I  am  really 
of  the  opinion  that  not  one  housewife  in  one  hundred  in  our  section 
could  be  so  misled.  Even  if  such  were  the  case  the  logical  remedy  is 
simple.  It  is  not  found  in  this  miscarriage  of  justice  known  as  the 
Grout  bill,  or  in  legislation  off  the  usual  lines,  which  is  invariably  pro- 
posed by  butter  interests;  but  in  the  just  and  common-sense  ideas 
embodied  in  the  Wadsworth  bill,  which  was  turned  down  by  the 
House,  proving  conclusively  that  what  was  sought  was  not  to  honestly 
regulate  the  industry,  but  to  destroy  it. 

Now,  Mr.  Ob  airman,  the  reason  I  am  interested  in  this  bill  is  because 
I  used  to  be  in  the  grocery  business,  and  I  sold  oleomargarine  in  large 
quantities  to  our  people.  They  knew  that  they  were  buying  it  when 
they  got  it.  It  was  cheaper,  and  as  good  in  many  instances  as  the 
creamery  butter  that  I  used  to  sell  and  paid  a  high  price  for  and  had 
to  get  a  high  price  for  from  the  consumer.  I  know  that  our  people 
would  be  placed  at  a  great  disadvantage  if  this  measure  were  passed. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question,  Mr.  Dolan.  Do 
you  use  the  article  yourself? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Yes,  sir ;  every  day. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  objection  have  you  to  having  it  of  a 
color  easily  distinguishable  from  the  yellow  color  of  butter?  What 
objection  would  there  be  to  that? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Well,  I  will  tell  you. 

THE  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  In  other  words,  do  you  eat  it  on  account  of 
its  taste  and  its  nutritious  character,  or  simply  on  account  of  its  looks? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  I  eat  it  because  it  is  wholesome,  and  cheaper  than  the 
other  article  for  me  to  provide  for  my  family. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  309 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  its  color  has  nothing  to  do  with  its 
wholesomeness  or  palatability,  has  it  1 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Well,  the  point  about  the  color  of  it,  Mr.  Chairman,  is 
this:  People,  while  they  are  poor,  have  some  pride;  and  they  do  not 
like  to  go  into  a  store  among  other  people  who  have  money  and  buy 
this  article,  because  everyone  knows  that  it  is  oleo  they  are  getting 
when  they  purchase  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So,  instead  of  the  merchant  deceiving  them 
they  want  to  be  put  in  a  position  where  they  can  deceive  their  neighbors! 

Mr.  DOLAN.  They  want  to  go  in  and  buy  it  as  butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  they  call  for  it  as  butter? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  They  all  know  what  they  are  getting.  Mr.  Chairman, 
you  know  that  when  people  go  into  a  store  and  get  three  rolls  of  but- 
ter for  50  cents  they  know  they  are  not  getting  country  butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  do  they  call  for  butter  when  they  go 
to  the  store? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Some  do,  yes;  they  have  done  it  many  times  with  me. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  they  get  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Yes;  they  get  oleomargarine.  They  know  that  it  is 
oleomargarine.  They  will  be  told  that  it  is.  Every  man  who  sells  it 
will  tell  them. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  They  use  the  word  "  butter"  simply  to  pre- 
serve their  general  reputation  in  the  community? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Yes;  that  is  my  understanding.  But  they  know  that 
they  are  getting  oleomargarine;  and  it  would  be  unfair  to  the  working 
people 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Why  should  it  be  regarded  as  disreputable 
to  purchase  an  article  which  is  wholesome  and  nutritive,  and  in  every 
respect  equal  to  creamery  butter,  simply  because  it  sells  for  15  cents  a 
pound  instead  of  30? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  disreputable;  but 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  uncomfortable,  then  ? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  People  have  a  little  pride  about  it,  you  know. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  They  have  a  pride,  usually,  in  getting  what 
they  want  as  cheaply  as  possible. 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Yes;  and  I  do  not  think  that  that  should  be  any  reason 
for  having  this  color  taken  out.  You  might  as  well  pass  a  law  to  say 
to  men  if  they  were  going  to  eat  candies,  they  would  have  to  eat  white 
candies  only.  Some  people  prefer  pink.  And  so  it  is  with  whisky. 
When  it  comes  from  the  still,  the  worm,  it  is  white ;  and  then  it  is  after- 
wards colored,  because  people  like  it  that  way.  I  would  rather  have  it 
that  way  than  have  it  white.  That  is  a  plain  statement  of  the  matter. 

Our  people,  Mr.  Chairman,  are  against  the  passage  of  the  measure. 
I  represent  over  40,000  miners  and  their  families ;  and  I  know  from  the 
sentiment  in  other  sections  of  the  country  to  which  I  go,  from  talking 
to  people  who  are  interested  in  our  organization,  that  they  do  not  want 
to  be  deprived  of  the  ability  to  purchase  this  wholesome  article  of  food. 
If  it  is  not  made  in  a  wholesome  way,  then  they  do  not  want  it;  but  if  it 
is  just  as  good  to  them  to  spread  their  bread  with  as  35-cent  butter, 
they  do  want  it.  And  if  this  measure  passes,  the  chances  are  that 
butter  will  go  up  to  50  cents,  and  poor  people  will  not  be  able  to  pur- 
chase it  at  all. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  May  I  ask  a  question,  please? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  candy  manufacturers  color 
their  product  for  the  same  purpose  that  oleomargarine  manufacturers 
color  theirs? 


310  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  DOLAN.  JSTo;  I  maintain  that  the  candy  manufacturers  do  the 
same  as  the  creamery  and  butter  manufacturers.  They  color  it  for  the 
purpose  of  making  it  palatable,  or  because  people  prefer  this  pink 
color  to  white. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Does  the  color  in  candy  make  it  resemble  any  other 
article  so  that  the  people  can  not  tell  it  from  another  article,  and  does 
it  endanger  the  people  being  defrauded? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  I  do  not  know  that  it  does;  but,  although  I  have  been 
in  the  business  for  over  four  years,  I  do  not  know  of  anyone  who  ever 
was  defr  aided  through  buying  oleomargarine  for  creamery  butter.  If 
there  are  such  cases  they  are  isolated  ones. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Your  experience  has  probably  been  limited  to  your 
own  dealings  with  the  people,  has  it  not? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Well,  that  is  a  good  experience;  and  I  now  travel  around 
among  the  people.  I  am  on  the  road  all  of  the  time,  and  I  get  in 
among  the  working  people,  and  they  are  the  people  who  are  interested 
here.  I  am  not  here  in  the  interest  of  the  oleomargarine  manufactur- 
ers or  the  creamery  butter  manufacturers,  but  in  the  interest  of  my 
own  people,  for  I  know  that  this  bill  will  be  an  injury  to  them  if  it  is 
passed. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  know  that  the  highest  priced  butter  in  the 
United  States  is  absolutely  as  white  as  it  can  be  made  ? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Do  I  know  that  the  highest  priced  butter  is  absolutely 
white,  you  say? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  As  white  as  it  can  be  made? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  I  will  agree  with  you  that  it  is  as  white  as  it  can  be 
made.  I  have  had  some  experience  in  that  line.  I  used  to  own  two 
cows,  and  my  wife  used  to  make  butter.  I  thought  she  was  a  cleanly 
woman,  but  she  could  not  make  it  white. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  She  could  not? 

Mr.  DOLAN.  No — not  absolutely  white. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  these  gentlemen  this  morning  proved 
that  it  is  the  dirt  that  makes  it  white.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Well,  I  do  not  know.  There  is  one  thing  that  I  will  tell 
you :  It  is  not  absolutely  white,  but  it  is  not  the  color  that  you  get  it 
from  the  farmers.  In  my  section  I  have  known  farmers  to  buy  oleo- 
margarine. What  they  did.  it  for  I  did  not  know. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  believe  that  is  all,  Mr.  Dolan. 

Mr.  DOLAN.  Thank  you,  sir. 

STATEMENT   OF   JOHN   PIERCE,    REPRESENTING    THE   AMALGA- 
MATED ASSOCIATION  OF  IRON  AND  STEEL  WORKERS. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  the  president  of  the  Amalgamated 
Association  of  Iron  and  Steel  Workers,  Mr.  Pierce? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  No;  I  am  one  of  its  trustees.  On  last  Saturday  we 
had  the  regular  quarterly  meeting  of  our  advisory  board,  and  they 
selected  me  to  come  down  here  and  represent  the  association.  As  you 
know,  all  of  our  people  are  workingmen,  too.  They  all  work  in  the 
rolling  mills. 

When  my  attention  was  first  called  to  the  Grout  bill  by  newspaper 
comment,  after  its  presentation  in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives,  I  had 
no  idea  that  such  an  infamous  measure  would  ever  receive  serious  con- 
sideration, much  less  pass  that  body,  as  it  has  done.  The  interest  of 
the  consumer  seems  not  to  have  been  considered  at  all,  the  sole  idea 
apparently  being  that  the  creameryman  and  dairyman  should  have  a 


m/\mf\t\f\ 


OLEOMAKGAEINE.  311 


monopoly  of  the  entire  market  for  their  wares,  by  rendering  a  competing 
product  so  unattractive  that  nobody  would  care  to  purchase  it.  Do 
you  think  that  all  the  workingmen  of  western  Pennsylvania  or  of  these 
United  States  (a  portion  of  whom  I  represent  in  the  Amalgamated 
Association  of  Iron  and  Steel  Workers)  can  afford  to  pay  35  cents  per 
pound  for  creamery  butter,  which  is  the  present  price  for  the  first-class 
article  in  Pittsburgh  Everyone,  I  think,  will  admit  that  all  can  not. 

If  this  bill  passes,  what  position  are  we  in?  On  examination  we 
find  that  we  will  have  three  options,  viz:  (1)  Creamery  butter  at  35 
cents,  if  the  conditions  are  no  worse;  and  I  am  not  sure  but  that  the 
passage  of  this  bill  may  make  it  50  cents  per  pound.  (2)  Colored  oleo 
at  25  cents  per  pound,  on  account  of  the  10-cent  tax.  (3)  White  oleo 
at  15  cents. 

Colored  oleomargarine  is  at  present  retailed  at  from  12J  to  20  cents 
per  pound.  On  investigation  I  am  satisfied  that  most  of  our  people 
are  paying  about  15  cents  per  pound  for  it,  and  I  can  not  admit  that 
those  who  buy  it  can  afford  to  pay  more.  I  therefore  arrive  at  the  con- 
clusion that  they  must  either  find  10  cents  per  pound  more  to  pay  this 
proposed  robbery  (for  I  can  not  dignify  it  by  the  name  of  tax),  or  buy 
and  eat  white  oleomargarine.  And  this  to  satisfy  the  greed  of  the 
manufacturers  of  butter,  who  think  that  white  oleomargarine  is  good 
enough  for  those  who  can  not  afford  to  pay  10  cents  additional  for  yel- 
low, or  the  20  cents  or  more  additional  for  creamery  butter,  or  use  the 
off  grades  of  butter  now  unsalable  as  food! 

Shall  those  thus  defrauded  of  what  should  be  their  inalienable  con- 
stitutional right  be  compelled  either  to  wear  in  their  homes,  on  their 
very  tables,  flaunting  before  the  eyes  of  their  children  and  of  those 
who  may  share  their  board,  a  badge  of  their  poverty,  and  an  emblem 
of  their  inability  to  pay  a  legalized  robbery;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
contribute  from  their  meager  board  to  the  hellish  greed  of  the  butter 
interests,  of  whom  it  has  been  doubtless  truly  said  that  they  seek  to 
follow  the  fashion  and  form  a  trust,  but  are  deterred  by  the  existence 
of  oleomargarine? 

I  believe  that  every  pound  of  creamery  butter  to-day  is  artificially 
colored.  I  have  been  told  so  by  dealers  and  chemists;  and  it  puzzles 
me,  as  a  layman,  where  they  get  the  basis  or  reason  to  ask  for  the 
exclusion  or  taxing  of  color  in  oleomargarine,  when  they  use  it  ad 
libitum  themselves. 

It  has  been  said  with  truth  that  some  oleomargarine  has  been  sold 
for  butter.  I  do  not  defend  this.  Every  honest  man  would  condemn 
it.  If  there  are  not  laws  to  prevent  it,  there  should  be  and  would  be, 
and  they  would  be  enforced ;  but  the  dairyman  and  the  butter  interests 
have  never  sought  to  have  passed  and  enforced  anything  like  that. 
They  seize  on  every  legislative  opportunity  to  try  to  wipe  out  the  sale 
of  oleomargarine — not  to  regulate  it,  but  to  tax  and  legislate  it  out  of 
existence.  Have  not  a  dozen  States,  through  the  immense  influence 
of  the  butter  interests,  and  their  misstatements,  in  times  past,  enacted 
laws  utterly  forbidding  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine 
within  their  borders  on  the  lying  and  shallow  pretense  that  it  was 
inimical  to  public  health  ?  And  this  claim  has  been  seriously  advanced, 
despite  the  fact  that  scientists  to  a  man  have  declared  it  just  as  whole- 
some as  butter,  and  Justice  Peckhain,  of  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court,  in  rendering  a  decision  said  it  was  a  "  notorious  fact "  that  it 
was  a  healthful  article. 

New  York  had  such  a  law  on  her  statute  books  for  years,  as  had 
Pennsylvania  from  1885  to  1899.  Now  we  have  a  color  law.  Our  first 


312  OLEOMARGARINE. 

statute  was  more  commendable  than  the  new  one  is,  as  there  could  be 
no  mistaking  its  frank  intent;  but  the  second,  despite  its  pretensions, 
would  be  as  effective  an  exclusion  as  the  first,  were  it  possible  to  carry 
out  its  provisions,  which  are  so  unpopular  in  some  places  that  a  jury 
can  not  be  secured  to  convict  anyone  under  it. 

To  affirmatively  recommend  and  pass  this  bill  would  be  a  crying 
injustice  to  the  workingman  in  my  section,  and  to  consumers  every- 
where. Oleomargarine,  under  its  own  name,  should  have  the  same 
freedom  in  our  markets  as  any  other  article  of  commerce;  and  if  legis- 
lative bodies  will  ignore  the  greed  of  the  self-seeking  butter  interests, 
and  pass  stringent  laws  regulating  its  sale  for  what  it  is,  and  not 
hampering  or  prohibiting  its  manufacture  (as  has  been  the  sole  intent 
of  every  law  ever  proposed),  then  all  this  fuss  and  feathers  will  cease. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  a  good  many  of  our  people  who  make 
pretty  good  wages,  and  of  course  they  can  buy  butter ;  but  the  majority 
of  them  make  small  wages  now,  especially  since  we  got  into  this  trust 
business.  I  know  there  are  lots  of  men  who  do  not  like  to  buy  this 
white  oleomargarine,  because  it  looks  more  like  lard  than  anything  else. 
It  does  not  look  like  butter  at  all.  Why  should  they  be  made  to  pay 
10  cents  a  pound  more  because  they  get  butter  that  resembles  country 
butter,  and  looks  a  little  better  on  the  table?  That  is  why  1  am  here 
to -oppose  the  passage  of  this  bill.  It  is  for  our  people  alone,  for  of 
course  I  do  not  know  much  about  the  butter  business  myself. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  a  question  of  family  pride,  you  think? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  think  it  is,  yes;  for  I  tell  you,  I  would  not  like  to  eat 
it  white. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  think  that  if  a  person  goes  into  a  store 
to  buy  this  article,  he  does  not  like  to  be  heard  calling  for  oleomarga- 
rine1? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  That  is  right. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Therefore  he  calls  for  butter? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  He  calls  for  butter;  but  the  merchant  understands  that 
he  wants  oleomargarine. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  how  does  the  merchant  get  the  idea 
that  he  really  wants  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Well,  I  will  tell  you.  In  the  case  of  families  dealing 
at  certain  stores,  the  man  who  runs  the  store  generally  knows  what 
they  want.  They  will  come  in,  or  they  will  send  the  child  in,  nnd  say, 
"  I  want  three  pounds  of  butter."  The  dealer  knows  exactly  what  they 
want;  but  they  will  say  "  butter,"  of  course.  He  knows  that  they  buy 
oleomargarine  all  the  time,  however. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  he  knows  he  sells  them  oleomar- 
garine? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes;  and  they  will  come  in  and  ask  for  it  in  that  way, 
even  if  there  is  nobody  in  the  store.  If  I  were  sent  on  an  errand  of 
that  kind,  I  would  not  care  about  going  up  and  asking  for  oleomar- 
garine. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Why  not?  Let  me  understand  that.  Is  it 
regarded  as  a  disreputable  thing  to  have  it  on  your  table? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Oh,  well,  every  man  does  not  like  to  expose  his  poverty. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  know;  but  it  is  not  exposing  his  poverty 
if  the  article  is  nearly  as  good  as  butter,  and  very  much  cheaper.  You 
can,  almost  any  day,  see  a  bargain  counter  crowded  with  the  best 
women  in  the  community,  who  are  trying  to  get  a  cent  reduction  on 
the  price  of  a  thing  they  want. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  is  the  fashion. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  313 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  then,  why  should  it  be  regarded  as 
disreputable  to  have  this  product  on  your  table1?  Why  should  it  dis- 
grace the  children  to  wake  up  to  the  fact  that  they  are  really  eating 
oleomargarine? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Well,  I  have  heard  children  say:  "  Oh7  look  at  that  old 
stuff!  It  looks  like  lard." 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  they  have  that  kind  of  oleomargarine 
now? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  They  will  say  that  of  the  white  stuff.  They  will  do  it. 
I  have  heard  them  say  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  May  1  ask  a  question?  Do  you  not  know  that  oleomar- 
garine is  largely  lard  I 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  do  not  know  what  it  is  made  of. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  eat  it  largely  on  faith  yourself,  I 
should  judge,  Mr.  Pierce? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  do  not.    I  never  eat  any. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  eat  it  at  all? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Oleomargarine?    No,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Why  not? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Well,  I  just  don't  have  to. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  you  regard  it  as  the  last  resort,  do  you? 
(Laughter.) 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Well,  I  would  not  be  ashamed  to  eat  it  if  I  had  to. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  it  is  as  good  as  butter,  I  should  not 
think  a  sensible  man  ought  to  complain  against  it  because  it  is  cheap. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  don't  know  that  it  is  as  good;  I  don't  know.  I  can't 
answer  that  question. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  should  go  into  a  store  and  call  for 
butter,  you  would  expect  to  get  the  genuine  product,  I  take  it,  Mr. 
Pierce? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes;  but  there  is  such  a  thing  as  farmers  coloring  their 
butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  know  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But,  from  all  the  testimony,  I  understand 
that  the  coloring  matter  adds  nothing  to  the  nutritive  or  palatable 
qualities  of  either  oleomargarine  or  butter. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Oh,  no;  it  simply  makes  them  look  better.  And  why 
should  they  pay  10  cents  a  pound  for  making  a  thing  look  a  little  more 
palatable?  Even  if  it  is  not,  it  will  look  more  palatable. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Suppose  it  could  be  shown,  Mr.  Pierce, 
that  a  large  number  of  these  people  who  call  for  butter  at  the  grocery 
stores  of  the  country  are  looking  forward  to  getting  butter,  and  in 
point  of  fact  are  getting  oleomargarine,  and  that  they  have  the  same 
prejudice  against  it  that  you  personally  have.  Would  it  not  be  fair 
to  so  fix  the  law  as  to  prevent  their  being  swindled? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  believe  there  are  some  of  them  being  swindled  now 
through  buying  country  butter.  I  know  that  some  of  these  farmers 
buy  oleomargarine.  What  they  do  it  for  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not 
mean  to  say  that  all  farmers  do  it,  or  that  they  would  all  of  them  do 
anything  like  that;  but  I  know  it  is  done  by  some.  And  I  know 
another  thing:  I  saw  a  lady,  when  she  came  home  from  market  one 
time,  cut  her  3-pound  roll  of  butter  in  two,  find  a  snowball  in  it,  and  a 
little  stone  in  the  middle  of  that.  [Laughter.] 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  A  little  what? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  A  little  stone  in  the  middle  of  the  snowball.  That  was 
"  country  butter,"  too,  mind  you. 


314  OLEOMARG  AKINE. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  time  of  the  year  was  this? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  This  was  in  winter.  [Laughter.]  It  would  not  be  apt 
to  have  any  snowball  in  it  in  summer. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  was  to  refrigerate  it,  I  guess. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  So  you  see  you  can't  depend  altogether  on  the  farmers. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course  not.  The  idea  is,  that  if  this  bill 
were  passed  it  would  put  a  stop  to  impositions  of  that  sort,  whether 
practiced  by  farmers,  grocers,  manufacturers,  or  anybody  else.  Do  you 
think  the  workingmen  of  your  association  would  seriously  resent  being 
guaranteed  that  they  would  get  what  they  called  and  paid  for? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Well,  I  know  that  they  don't  like  this  10-cent  business; 
and  they  want  to  buy  oleomargarine  that  is  colored.  They  like  that 
style  of  it;  and  they  don't  like  to  have  to  pay  this  extra  10  cents,  or  8 
cents,  or  whatever  it  is  going  to  be. 

Now,  that  is  why  our  people  object.  I  think  the  cheaper  you  keep 
this  oleomargarine  the  cheaper  we  will  get  our  country  butter,  too. 
That  is  the  way  1  look  at  it.  If  you  raise  this  tax  to  10  cents,  don't 
you  think  the  farmer  will  run  his  butter  up,  too? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  I  will  not  undertake  to  go  into  that 
question. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  don't  know,  either;  but  I  just  think  that  way  about 
it.  I  am  looking  at  it  for  my  own  sake  there,  because  I  don't  want  them 
to  raise  the  price  of  butter  any  more.  I  think  35  cents  a  pound  for 
butter  is  enough  for  anybody. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  will  do,  so  far  as  the  committee  is 
concerned,  Mr.  Pierce. 

STATEMENT  OF  D.  A.  TOMPKINS,  OF  CHARLOTTE,  NORTH  CAROLINA. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Senator  Foster).  Mr.  Tompkins,  do  I  under- 
stand that  you  represent  the  cotton-seed  interest? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  cotton-seed  oil  interest — yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  From  what  State  are  you? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  North  Carolina. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  a  time  do  you  wish?  Would  you 
like  the  full  time,  thirty  minutes? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  If  I  can  have  thirty  minutes,  I  will  be  very  much 
obliged  to  the  committee. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all  the  time  we  have  this  morning. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  committee  will  be  very  liberal,  then,  if  it  gives 
me  all  the  time  it  has. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  We  convene  at  12  o'clock,  you  know,  and  we  can 
not  give  you  any  more  time  this  morning. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Yes.  sir.  What  I  say  will  be  more  of  a  general  nature 
than  an  attempt  to  go  into  specific  details ;  because,  I  believe,  you  have 
had  any  quantity  of  them. 

I  have  built  a  great  many  cotton-seed  oil  mills,  and  have  given  a  great 
deal  of  time  and  attention  to  the  subject  of  finding  new  uses  to  which  to 
put  the  oil.  It  is  a  product  which  is  a  result  of  discoveries  of  the  value 
of  cotton  seed,  and  the  new  uses  to  which  it  is  being  put  from  time  to 
time  exhibit  the  great  value  to  humanity  which  is  being  realized  from 
cotton  seed  in  the  way  of  getting  a  good,  wholesome  food  product. 

English  literature  is  absolutely  full  of  the  fights  of  old  methods  with 
new  methods — of  the  resistance  of  peoples  who  are  behind  the  times 
against  those  who  have  made  a  step  foiward,  and  who  have  put  some- 
thing into  the  field  of  competition.  And  you  will  admit  the  value  of 


OLEOMARGARINE.  315 

competition  as  having  been  acknowledged  in  all  industrial  occupa- 
tions. In  putting  forward  something  which  puts  the  old  processes  at 
a  disadvantage  a  fight  has  always  resulted,  and  the  fight  has  always 
ended  in  exactly  the  same  way.  The  new  and  better  thing  has  always 
won  in  the  end,  and  it  is  going  to  do  it  in  this  case,  in  my  opinion. 

The  value  to  humanity  to  any  new  discovery  or  invention  may  be 
tremendously  hidden  by  the  action  of  a  body  which  exercises  such  tre- 
mendous powers  as  the  United  States  Senate.  But  that  one  class  of 
people  shall  be  legislated  for  to  the  exclusion  of  all  humanity  getting 
the  benefit  of  the  advanced  method  of  putting  food  stuffs  on  the  market 
I  do  not  believe,  or  that  the  inferior  of  those  propositions  will  succeed 
as  against  that  larger  one  which  appeals  to  the  whole  of  humanity  as 
against  the  interests  of  a  small  class  in  one  occupation  alone. 

When  the  power  loom  was  invented  there  was  the  same  fight.  The 
hand-loom  weavers  made  a  great  growl  about  the  power  loom  tearing 
up  a  domestic  industry  by  the  roots,  about  the  unfairness  of  having 
machinery  to  put  cheaper  goods  on  the  market  than  could  be  made 
by  the  hand  loom,  and  there  was  riot  after  riot  over  it,  just  as  in  these 
modern  times  there  is  appeal  after  appeal  to  the  United  States  Senate 
to  protect  something  which  in  the  first  place  does  not  need  protection, 
which  is  against  the  interests  of  90  per  cent  of  the  people  and  in  favor  of 
the  interests  of  10  per  cent.  And  it  is  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  power 
loom,  or  in  the  case  of  the  introduction  of  aniline  dyes  as  against 
indigo.  You  might  as  well  be  legislating  upon  the  subject  of  whether 
we  could  dye  our  cotton  goods  with  aniline  dyes  or  whether  we  ought 
to  be  made  to  dye  them  with  indigo,  because  it  is  a  farming  industry 
which  ought  to  be  protected. 

Whatever  the  outcome  of  this  particular  investigation  may  be,  what- 
ever the  Senate  may  do  on  this  particular  occasion,  if  a  food  stuff  has 
been  found  out,  extracted  from  vegetable  products,  largely  made  up  of 
perfectly  healthful  products  on  the  other  hand,  which  is  a  good  thing 
for  all  the  humanity  of  the  United  States,  and  especially  a  good  thing 
for  the  working  people  of  the  United  States,  then  in  time,  if  you  pass 
this  law,  it  is  going  to  be  repealed.  Some  Senators  have  told  me  that 
they  feel  constrained  to  vote  for  it  because  they  have  heard  from  their 
constituents.  I  say  that  if  they  pass  this  legislation,  they  will  undo  it 
later,  because  they  win  hear  from  their  constituents  again  when  they 
do  do  it.  And  why"?  Because,  for  instance,  if  you  pass  this  law, 
throughout  the  whole  South  you  will  appreciate  the  products  of  corpo- 
rate dairies,  of  men  with  large  fortunes,  while  you  will  depreciate  by 
$2  a  ton  all  the  cotton  seed  that  is  sold  in  the  South  to  a  cotton-seed 
oil  mill. 

If  petitions  from  farmers  were  any  good,  and  if  these  cotton-seed  oil 
people  had  had  the  foresight  to  go  about  it,  they  could  have  gotten  a 
petition  signed  by  every  cotton  farmer  in  the  South,  because  practi- 
cally none  of  them  have  any  interest  whatever  in  the  dairy  business, 
and  every  single  one  of  them  has  an  interest  in  the  cotton-seed  oil 
industry  to  the  sake  of  making  or  losing  $2  a  ton,  according  to  whether 
you  pass  this  bill  or  whether  you  do  not  pass  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  it  would  depreciate  cotton- 
seed oil  ? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  know  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  cotton  seed  worth  now?  What  is 
the  price  of  it  ? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  varies  from  $8  to  $12;  and  if  you  put  this  tax  on 
oleomargarine,  and  destroy  the  market  for  it,  the  cotton  seed  will  have 


316  OLEOMARGARINE. 

to  be  bought  that  much  cheaper  in  order  to  sell  the  oil  at  the  depreci- 
ated price,  because  of  the  absence  of  this  market.  It  has  got  to  be 
shipped,  then,  to  Rotterdam  to  make  butter,  which  is  done  now  to  a 
very  large  extent.  There  are  enormous  shipments  of  cotton-seed  oil 
made  now  to  Rotterdam,  and  the  butter  of  a  large  proportion  of  those 
people  in  Europe  who  can  not  afford  to  use  anything  but  cheap  butter 
comes  from  this  cotton-seed  oil  product,  just  exactly  as  the  oleoinar 
Marine  made  in  this  country  is  largely  made  up  of  it. 

Now,  in  respect  to  other  interests  which  are  interfered  with,  you  have 
heard  from  the  stockmen,  and  you  know  the  extent  to  which  the  bill  is 
considered  adverse  to  their  interest.  But  there  is  still  another  interest 
which  I  have  not  heard  anybody  speak  of.  I  was  lormerly  an  employee 
of  the  Bethlehem  Iron  Works,  in  Pennsylvania.  1  lived  with  the  work- 
ing people,  because  1  was  one  of  them,  and  the  food  stuffs  that  were* 
bought  there  had  to  be  economical  food  stuffs.  It  was  exceedingly 
desirable  that  they  should  be  able  to  buy  wholesome  food  stuffs;  and  if 
your  bill  were  directed  to  the  question  of  whether  these  products  are 
wholesome  or  not,  it  would  be  quite  a  different  situation.  But  that  is 
not  the  proposition.  And  as  far  as  this  butter  being  more  or  less  manu- 
factured is  concerned,  the  dairy  butter  itself  is  really  manufactured; 
while  the  very  coloring  matter  which  you  are  proposing  to  refuse  the 
use  of  in  connection  with  butteriue  is  identically  the  same  thing,  and  is 
used  to  identically  the  same  extent  in  many  cases  in  the  butter  that 
comes  from  cattle,  and  there  is  just  as  much  deception  in  the  one  case 
as  in  the  other.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  not  any  deception  in  either 
case. 

If  in  the  renovation  of  butter  it  is  considered  desirable  to  give  it  a 
uniform  color,  that  is  all  right.  If  it  can  be  done  without  injury,  it  is 
all  right.  If  the  same  thing  can  be  done  in  butterine,  I  do  not  see  any 
objection  to  it,  any  more  than  you  should  attempt  to  object  to  a  girFs 
wearing  a  pretty  color  on  her  clothing  to  make  her  look  better.  The 
dressing  up  of  goods  is  practiced  all  the  world  over  all  the  time.  The 
exhibition  of  goods  in  show  windows,  with  the  brightest  colors  put  for- 
ward, is  simply  creating  an  attraction  by  which  the  goods  can  be  sold. 
And  to  undertake  to  pass  upon  coloring  matter  simply  because  it  is 
coloring  matter  and  nothing  else  is  identically  the  same  thing  as  to 
attempt  to  prevent  one  class  of  women  from  wearing  a  particular  color 
because  it  makes  them  look  like  another  class  of  women  who  are 
assumed  to  have  the  right  to  wear  those  colors. 

Take  the  matter  of  ginghams.  We  have  the  same  situation  all  the 
time.  We  buy  a  French  or  a  Scotch  gingham  over  here  that  costs  any 
where  from  30  to  60  cents  a  yard.  Immediately,  the  next  year,  those 
patterns  are  all  copied  and  sold  for  10  cents  a  yard.  Xow,  is  the  fact 
that  the  same  colors  are  used,  the  fact  that  a  girl  who  perhaps  works 
in  a  factory  undertakes  to  dress  herself  up  in  a  similar  manner  to  a 
woman  who  is  worth  a  fortune,  but  in  a  very  much  cheaper  way,  a  legiti- 
mate subject  for  legislation?  And  is  not  this  proposition  to  legislate 
with  respect  to  the  color  of  food  stuffs  identically  the  same  proposition  ? 

For  this  reason,  Mr.  Chairman,  practically  the  whole  forming  inter 
of  the  South  are  very  much  interested  in  seeing  this  bill  defeated, 
The  stock  interests  in  the  whole  United  States  are  very  much  inter. 
in  seeing  this  bill  defeated;  and  there  are  undoubtedly  working  people 
from  Maine  to  California  who  are  interested  in  seeing  that  a  whole, 
good,  and  cheap  foodstuff,  made  at  a  price  which  they  can  afford  to 
pay,  is  not  legislated  out  of  existence— not  because  the  richer  man 
the  poor  man  not  to  eat  butter  at  all  (and  I  am  not  making  any 


oi.  317 

special  plea  about  the  poor  man:  I  am  simply  speaking  about  the 
fiU'ts\  but  because  the  follow  who  makes  the  butter  and  himselt 'colors 
it  wants  his  particular  business  to  be  legislated  into  a  monopoly. 

Now,  in  respect  lo  this  matter  of  petitions,  about  which  I  have 
heard  a  good  deal,  there  is  not  to  my  mind  the  slighest  doubt  in  the 
world  that  they  have  been  manufactured.  The  dairy  in:  testa  have 
gone  out  among  farmers  and  persuaded  them  that  their  interests  were 
;.  with  by  this  product,  and  having  gotten  their  names 
on  vu  without  their  ever  having  come  voluntarily  forward  to  sign 

any  of  those  petitions  at  all.  And  I  assert,  without  the  slightest  hesi- 
tation as  to  the  truth  of  what  I  am  stating,  that  90  per  cent  of  the 
farn  c  he  South  could  be  gotten  to  sign  a  petition  asking  for 

e  of  you  to  vote  against  this  bill.    I  have  not  the  slightest 
>t  that  50  per  cent  of  all  the  working  people  of  every  State  in  this 
Union  would  do  the  same  thing;  and  I  know  I  could  go  to  the  Bethle- 
hem Iron  Works  and  get  90  per  cent  of  the  people  there,  by  a  repre- 
mon  of  what  you  are  doing  and  what  you  propose  to  do,  to  sign  a 
petition  demanding  that  you  should  not  vote  to  destroy  the  best 
improvement  in  foodstuffs  which  has  been  made  for  the  last  quarter 
century  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  have  to  live  economically, 
whether  they  are  working  people  or  whether  they  are  not. 

I  assert  another  thing,  which  is  a  repetition  of  that  which  has  already 
been  stated— that  if  yon  are  passing  this  bill  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in 
accordance  with  the  wishes  of  yonr  constituents,  when  yon  pass  it  you 
will  hear  from  yonr  constituents  again.  Your  constituents  on  the 
other  side  have  not  any  appreciation  of  what  yon  propose  to  do.  The 
people  who  are  interested  in  the  cotton  business  and  the  cotton-seed  oil 
ness  have  been  absolutely  idle  in  this  matter,  whereas  the  friends 
of  the  bill  have  been  securing  petition  alter  petition,  using  money  and 
labor,  and  getting  the  names  of  people  who  were  not  interested  in  it  aft 
alL  Now.  I  wonM  like  to  make  a  wager  that  the  petitions  you  will  get 
if  this  bill  is  passed,  after  it  is  passed,  will  immensely  exceed  those 
which  you  have  gotten  before.  I  claim  that  those  yon  have  gotten 
have  been  mannfitttmred  to  a  very  large  extent,  while  those  which  ytm 
wffl  get  wffl  be  spontaneous  art  e**tge*K.  And  they  will  come  from 
Maine  and  from  Pennsylvania  and  from  Ohio  and  California  aMlTVuna* 
and  from  every  other  Slate  of  the  Union;  because  there  are  too 
people  interested  in  this  subject*  vitally  and  in  their 
people  who  would  look  upon  it  as  being  exactly  the 
law  which  would  prevent  an  ordinary  girl 
whkh  imitated  somebody  efatfs  fin*  fioek- 
whk*  womtt  permit  the  mse  of  anffiae  djro,  which 
better,  boons*  somebody  wanted  to  ] 


Now,  if  tfcmfe  anything  ti* 

e 
*  ax  «po»  it  or 

,)    ^^^ 

l  Wr 


,         t  hAt  if  HI  the 


318  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  other  it  would  be  on  the  side  of  cotton-seed  oil  every  time.  There 
is  not  a  more  wholesome  article  made,  and  it  so  closely  approaches  olive 
oil,  which  is  one  of  the  finest  foodstuffs  that  has  been  known  for  cen- 
turies upon  centuries,  that  you  can  scarcely  tell  the  difference,  even  if 
you  are  an  expert,  while  those  who  are  not  can  not  tell  the  difference 
at  all. 

Senator  MONEY.  Will  you  allow  me  to  interrupt  you? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Certainly. 

Senator  MONEY.  A  few  years  ago  the  Italian  Government  prohibited 
the  importation  of  cotton-seed  oil  because  it  was  destroying  the  olive- 
oil  industry. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  And  what  was  the  result?  That  the  exportation  of 
olive  oil  fell  off  about  two  thirds,  as  I  understand. 

Senator  MONEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  That  is  just  what  I  am  predicting  will  follow  in  this 
case.  They  found  that  it  injured  an  industry  much  greater  than  the 
one  which  they  were  making  laws  about,  and  that  they  had  to  promptly 
repeal  the  act  which  they  had  passed  just  as  soon  as  they  could  get  to 
it.  They  found  that  the  interests  of  the  olive-oil  people  themselves 
were  interfered  with  by  an  act  which  practically  destroyed  a  large  part 
of  the  trade  in  oil. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  They  mixed  the  cotton-seed  oil  with  the  olive 
oil  and  sold  it  to  the  purchasers  as  being  the  genuine  stuff,  did  they 
not? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Sometimes  they  mixed  it  and  sometimes  they  did 
not.  Sometimes  they  sold  it  without  any  mixture  as  the  genuine  stuff"; 
and  it  was  the  genuine  stuff.  It  was  just  as  good  an  oil.  It  was  a 
vegetable  oil.  It  was  refined  to  the  same  degree  of  color.  It  was  used 
for  the  same  purpose,  and  you  could  not  tell  it  from  the  other.  Why 
was  it  not  the  same  stuff? 

Senator  MONEY.  Why,  the  Senator  himself  is  using  it  every  day. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Of  course  he  is. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  No;  I  avoid  all  suspicious  mixtures. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Then  you  do  not  eat  anything  but  cotton-seed  oil,  for 
there  is  nothing  suspicious  about  that.  I  think  about  a  great  many  of 
these  other  things,  and  especially  anout  dairy  butter,  there  would  be 
quite  a  suspicion  attached  to  them.  I  am  not  criticizing  it,  you  under- 
stand, but  I  say  there  would  be  quite  a  strong  suspicion  attached  to 
dairy  butter  as  regards  simply  whether  it  was  nothing  but  dairy  butter 
or  whether  it  was  something  made  in  a  dairy,  and  was  oleomargarine 
or  butterine,  as  you  call  it.  For  it  is  a  fact  that  even  the  buttermen 
use  coloring  matter.  It  is  probably  harmless,  and  is  all  right  enough, 
but  in  many  cases  they  also  use  more  or  less  stearin  and  cotton-seed 
oil  in  their  products.  In  fact,  when  they  put  the  coloring  matter  in 
the  butter,  I  understand  they  use  cotton  seed  oil  as  a  medium  for  the 
color,  so  that  all  the  so-called  dairy  butter  has  more  or  less  cotton- 
seed oil  in  it,  wherever  it  has  been  colored,  and  cotton -seed  oil  has 
been  used  as  the  medium. 

Senator  MONEY.  All  the  higher  grade  butter  has  cotton-seed  oil  in  it? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  All  the  higher  grade  butter  has  cotton-seed  oil  in  it. 
[Laughter  and  applause.] 

I  had  occasion  once  in  my  life  to  be  sent  to  Germany  to  put  up  a 
lot  of  machinery,  and  in  going  to  the  place  where  I  boarded,  1  observed 
that  there  was  some  trouble  about  the  question  of  my  sheets.  On 
investigation  I  found  that  they  were  straining  a  point  considerably  to 
give  me  linen  sheets  to  sleep  on  instead  of  cotton  sheets.  When  I 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  319 

found  that  out  I  told  them  that  they  were  worrying  themselves  about 
something  which  I  did  not  consider  of  any  consequence  at  all.  I  said: 
"Go  ahead  and  put  the  cotton  sheets  on;  I  would  just  as  lief  sleep  on 
them  as  sleep  on  linen  sheets7' — like  the  fellow  in  a  storm,  who,  when 
the  ship  ran  on  a  mud  bank,  told  the  captain  to  put  him  out,  that  he 
was  brought  up  in  a  muddy  country.  I  told  them  that  I  was  brought 
up  in  a  country  where  cotton  grew — that  I  had  no  prejudice  against  it 
at  all,  and  that  it  was  all  right. 

But  in  that  country  they  had  identically  the  same  prejudice  against 
the  use  of  cotton — cotton  clothes  and  cotton  sheets — as  we  find  exists 
in  this  country  with  reference  to  a  food  product  made  by  another  proc- 
ess than  in  a  churn.  Now,  I  knew  that  that  was  a  prejudice,  and  noth- 
ing but  a  prejudice.  I  knew  that  it  was  a  prejudice  which  would 
break  down  with  absolute  certainty.  And  yet  all  over  Germany, 
because  the  habit  had  existed  for  century  after  century  for  a  girl  who 
was  going  to  get  married  to  get  a  whole  lot  of  linen  sheets  and  linen 
tablecloths  and  linen  napkins,  it  was  not  thought  respectable  to  have  a 
house  with  cotton  sheets  in  it.  Yet  cotton  was  a  good  clothing  prod- 
uct. I  told  them  that  they  would  get  over  that  prejudice.  And  since 
that  time — it  has  been  twelve  or  fourteen  years  ago — I  have  heard  that 
a  tremendous  increase  in  the  use  of  cotton  cloth  has  taken  place, 
because  it  is  cheaper,  because  it  is  just  as  good  as  linen.  And  it  is 
simply  a  question  of  time  when  the  whole  prejudice  will  be  totally 
broken  down,  and  cotton  goods  will  go  in  Germany  just  as  they  go  here. 
Some  will  use  linen  where  linen  is  better,  and  sqrne  will  use  cotton 
where  cotton  is  better ;  but  the  great  bulk  of  the  plain  people  will  use 
cotton,  and  it  will  fall  to  a  condition  where  linen  is  only  used,  not 
because  cotton  is  not  just  as  good  and  just  as  agreeable,  but  because 
people  are  rich  and  want  to  pay  more  for  something  in  order  to  make 
a  little  distinction  about  it.  Now,  I  predict  that  this  product  of  cotton- 
seed oil  and  other  ingredients  which  go  to  make  a  good,  wholesome, 
ordinary  butter  will  come  to  be  used  all  over  this  country;  that  the 
United  States  Senators  and  the  other  aristocracy  [laughter]  will  not 
question  whether  it  is  that  or  anything  else;  that  only  a  few  people 
who  want  to  be  finicky  about  having  something  a  little  different  from 
anybody  else  will  pay  a  bigger  price  for  the  dairy  butter,  the  supply  of 
which  will  always  be  inadequate  to  meet  the  demand,  and  is  inadequate 
now.  But  the  great  mass  of  the  consumption  will  be  of  a  butter  made 
of  wholesome  products  from  the  cow,  in  the  way  of  beef,  stearin,  and 
tallow,  and  other  things,  and  of  cotton- seed  oil,  and  whatever  other 
ingredients  are  necessary  to  make  a  butter  just  as  satisfactory,  when 
compared  with  the  dairy  butter,  as  cotton  is  satisfactory  when  com- 
pared with  linen. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  you  think  the  curiosity  on  the  part  of  the 
average  citizen  to  know  what  is  in  it  will  disappear  in  the  course  of 
time? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Except  on  the  part  of  the  dairymen.  I  think  their 
curiosity  will  continue  throughout  the  investigation. 

Senator  MONEY.  Like  hash;  they  do  not  care  what  is  in  it. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Take  the  case  of  the  poor  workingman.  You  know 
perfectly  well  that  they  can  not  afford  to  pay  35  cents  a  pound  for  dairy 
butter.  They  do  not  question  whether  the  butter  sold  to  them  at  15  or 
20  cents  a  pound  was  made  by  this  process  or  that  process.  They 
simply  question  whether  it  is  wholesome  and  whether  it  tastes  all 
right;  and  I  will  tell  you  that  there  are  no  more  particular  people  in 


320  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  world  than  those  working  people  of  Philadelphia  and  Bethlehem, 
where  I  formerly  worked,  as  to  the  matter  of  the  wbolesomeness  of  the 
food  they  eat.  The  housewives  there  keep  the  best  houses  in  the 
United  States.  They  use  cotton  sheets,  and  they  use  cotton  all  the 
way  through. 

Senator  MONEY.  They  have  good  sense. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Yes ;  they  have  good  sense.  They  make  our  armor 
plates  and  armor  forgings  and  build  our  ships.  Those  are  the  people 
who  do  these  things. 

I  take  it  that  the  United  States  Senate  can  handicap  the  progress  of 
improvement.  They  can  pass  a  law  saying  that  a  power  loom  can  not 
be  run  except  by  paying  a  tax  on  it,  in  order  to  try  to  protect  the  hand- 
loom  weavers.  That  is  what  the  English  people  did  a  hundred  years 
ago,  but  it  did  not  succeed.  The  opposition  did  not  last.  There  were 
people  killed.  There  were  riots.  There  was  infinite  trouble.  You  can 
stay  the  progress  of  an  improvement  for  a  time,  but  if  it  is  an  improve- 
ment it  will  succeed  in  spite  even  of  legislation.  Political  economists 
tell  us  that  on  one  occasion  in  England,  and  on  more  than  one  occasion 
in  other  countries,  trade  had  been  maintained  by  smugglers  when  the 
tariff  attempted  to  destroy  it,  or  was  put  so  high  as  to  make  it  practi- 
cally prohibitory.  It  is  well  known  in  making  tariff  lists  that  if  you 
attempt  to  put  an  embargo  on  a  certain  class  of  goods,  you  can  not  put 
more  than  so  much  on  it,  because  if  you  do  you  will  throw  the  business 
totally  into  the  hands  of  smugglers. 

I  am  one  of  those  who  believe  that  this  cotton- seed  oil  business, 
together  with  its  outgrowing  industries, is  one  which  you  are  not  going 
to  stop  by  legislation.  It  is  a  food  stuff  which  is  too  valuable,  which 
goes  to  too  many  people,  to  have  a  stop  put  to  it  even  by  law ;  and  you 
will  have  a  whole  lot  of  people  arrested  in  the  year  during  which  the 
bill  lasts  if  you  pass  it.  You  will  have  a  whole  lot  of  trouble  about 
collecting  these  revenues;  but  the  industry  will  go  on,  and  in  time  you 
will  get  tired  of  it  and  you  will  repeal  this  bill,  and  the  improvement 
will  live,  as  almost  all  improvements  live.  And  some  of  the  people  who 
helped  to  pass  the  bill  will  live  at  home  and  run  dairies,  instead  of 
legislating  in  Congress. 

I  may  say  that  if  there  are  any  questions  which  the  gentleman  would 
like  to  ask  I  will  be  happy  to  answer  them. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Have  you  gone  over  the  question  of  how  far 
cotton-seed  oil  enters  into  the  oleomargarine  product  ? 

Mr.  TOMPKIINS.  It  is  a  very  variable  quantity,  more  or  less;  and  in 
many  cases  cotton-seed  oil  is  used  for  cooking  purposes  without  any 
mixture  at  all.  I  think  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  investigated 
the  subject,  though.  Mr.  Miller,  can  you  tell  me  what  the  percentage 
is?  It  is  something  like  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Ten  million  pounds,  I  understand,  were  used  during 
the  past  year. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  What  is  the  percentage  in  that  particular 
formula  ? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  is  a  matter  of  investigation  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  You  will  find  his  statement  accurate,  I  think. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  What  is  it— the  oleo  oil,  or  the  neutral  oil,  or 
the  butter  oil? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  butter  oil. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  It  seems  to  be  8  per  cent.  Of  course  this  legis- 
lation does  not  affect  the  ordinary  domestic  use  of  cotton  seed  oil.  You 
have  said  that  considerable  of  that  was  being  used  without  admixture. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  321 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Well,  the  whole  proposition  is  this:  Here  are  two 
food  stuffs.  Put  one  through  identically  the  same  tests  that  you  do 
the  other,  and  the  only  difficulty  about  that,  so  far  as  the  dairy  people 
are  concerned,  would  be  that  the  oleomargarine  and  cotton-seed  oil 
products  would  come  out  ahead  every  time. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  If  the  committee  and  the  speaker  please,  that  formula 
which  is  given  there  is  only  the  formula  used  in  one  particular  grade 
of  oleomargarine  at  one  particular  factory.  It  is  not  a  criterion  of  all 
that  that  factory  turns  out  or  of  what  any  other  factory  turns  out. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Is  there  any  accessible  criterion  to  which  we 
could  turn? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  made  an  investi- 
gation, and  you  could  ultimately  get  the  result  of  his  investigation  by 
applying  for  it.  But,  as  I  tell  you,  it  is  very  variable.  Some  factories 
use  8  per  cent,  some 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  says  10  per  cent  is  the 
average. 

Mr.  JELKE.  About  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  Secretary's  report  gave  10  per  cent  as  an  aver- 
age of  the  whole  sum  of  oleomargarine.  There  is  oleomargarine  made 
without  any  cotton-seed  oil  at  all,  I  think. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  the  lowest  grade. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  you  cotton-seed  oil  men  are  rather 
opposed  to  some  kinds  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  No;  we  are  not  opposed  to  any  good  thing.  We 
think  a  good  thing  is  all  right  and  ought  to  be  let  alone.  It  is  only 
the  dairy  men  who  are  "  gunning  for  it." 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman  to  this  fact, 
which  probably  will  not  be  provided  against  as  the  bill  now  stands: 
Cotton -seed  oil,  under  this  bill,  could  not  be  used  at  all,  because  cotton- 
seed oil  has  quite  a  little  color  in  it,  and,  as  I  suggested  when  I  was 
speaking1  before  the  committee,  it  would  be  one  of  the  ingredients 
which  would  cause  it  to  look  like  butter. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Then,  in  that  phase  of  the  bill,  I  do  not  understand 
how  a  committee  of  the  United  States  Senate  could  consider  for  a 
moment  the  passage  of  an  act  which  would  permit  the  use  of  a  color- 
ing matter  in  one  case  and  prohibit  it  in  another,  any  more  than  you 
would  permit  the  wearing  of  a  dress  of  a  certain  kind  by  one  woman 
and  prevent  the  use  of  the  same  color  by  another.  I  do  not  see  under 
what  pretext  it  could  come  about. 

Senator  MONEY.  It  appears,  from  what  they  claim  here,  then,  that 
everything  needs  coloring  except  cotton-seed  oil.  [Laughter.]  Butter 
needs  coloring,  and  oleomargarine  is  colored,  but  cotton  seed  oil  does 
not  need  anything  in  it. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Cotton-seed  oil  really,  on  its  merits,  needs  absolutely 
nothing.  This  is  a  controversy  between  other  products. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Your  time  is  up,  Mr.  Tompkins.  We  must 
go  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  If  there  is  any  other  representative  of  the  cotton- seed 
interest  here  I  would  like  to  get  him  to  give  me  the  figures  as  to  the 
interests  of  the  cotton- seed  oil  people  here.  According  to  a  little  cal- 
culation I  have  made,  the  amount  of  cotton-seed  oil  used  in  oleomar- 
garine constitutes  less  than  two-thirds  of  1  per  cent  of  their  gross 
output. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  can  tell  you  right  now  that  they  have  80,000,000 
worth  of  interest  a  year  in  it,  if  this  bill  is  passed  in  depreciation  of 
S.  Rep.  2043 21 


322  OLEOMABGARINE. 

the  value  of  cotton  seed.  According  to  my  estimate  of  3,000,000  tons 
of  cotton  seed  which  are  used  for  making  oil  every  year,  their  loss  would 
be  $6,000,000  a  year — the  loss  of  the  cotton-seed  people  alone.  Now, 
you  would  bleed  the  working  people  of  the  country  of  ten  millions  more, 
and  you  would  bleed  the  stock  people  of  five.  That  is  what  you  would 
do.  That  is  an  estimate  of  the  value,  in  dollars  and  cents,  of  these 
interests. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  been  informed  that  107,000,001) 
pounds  of  oleomargarine  were  made  last  year,  at  about  20  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  You  are  forgetting  the  eflect  of  this  legislation  on 
exportation. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Yes;  its  effect  on  the  market  price,  in  decreasing  the 
market  price  of  oil,  and  increasing  the  price  of  the  food  stuffs  of  the 
working  people,  who  now  buy  oleomargarine.  You  must  not  forget 
those  two  facts. 

Thereupon,  at  12.05  o'clock,  p.  m.,  the  committee  took  a  recess  until 
2.30  o'clock,  p.  m. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  committee  resumed  its  session. 

Present:  Senators  Dolliver  (acting  chairman)  and  Foster. 

Present,  also,  Charles  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy 
Union ;  John  F.  Jelke,  representing  Braun  &  Fitts,  Chicago,  111. ;  Frank 
W.  Tillinghast,  representing  the  Vermont  Manufacturing  Company,  of 
Providence,  R.  I. ;  Charles  E.  Schell,  representing  the  Ohio  Butteriue 
Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  and  others. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Who  is  the  next  speaker f 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Mr.  Conley  is  ready  to  be  heard,  as  I  understand. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  here  in  the  interests  of  cotton  seed  ? 

Mr.  CONLEY.  Yes,  sir.  I  represent  the  De  Soto  Company,  of  Green- 
ville, Miss. 

STATEMENT  OF  J.  B.  CONLEY,  OF  GREENVILLE,  MISS. 

Mr.  CONLEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  here  representing  the  Crushers 
Association,  and  more  particularly  the  mills  of  Mississippi.  There  are 
other  gentlemen  here  from  different  sections  of  the  country  represent- 
ing the  same  interests,  who  will  enter  their  protest  with  mine  against 
the  passage  of  the  bill  known  as  the  Grout  bill. 

1  feel  sure,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  passage  of  this  bill  will  be  far 
more  reaching  than  you  now  contemplate.  It  will  affect  the  cotton- 
seed oil  mills  very  materially,  to  a  greater  extent  than  we  can  now 
realize  if  we  take  into  consideration  only  the  loss  of  the  sale  of  the  oil 
that  goes  into  oleomargarine.  The  effect  of  the  passage  of  the  bill 
would  be  to  leave  a  surplus  on  hand  which  we  would  have  to  in  some 
way  dispose  of;  and  the  best  that  we  could  count  on,  assuming  that 
we  could  dispose  at  all  of  this  accumulated  surplus  of  oil  (and  I  will 
add  here  that  the  mills  generally  carry  over  a  surplus  of  oil)  would  be 
to  dispose  of  it  at  a  lower  price.  As  you  know,  Mr.  Chairman,  a  sur- 
plus of  any  commodity  means  a  lowered  price. 

There  are  something  over  400  mills  in  the  cotton  States,  about  240 
mills  east  of  the  Mississippi  River,  21  in  Arkansas,  and  2  in  Missouri. 
As  to  the  number  of  mills  in  Texas,  I  am  not  accurately  informed,  but 
will  estimate  it  at  about  150.  We  have  45  mills  in  Mississippi;  and  if 
this  bill  becomes  a  law  it  will  entail  a  very  serious  loss  to  the  mills 
and  to  the  planters  and  to  the  laborers  and  everybody  interested.  We 
have  4  mills  in  the  little  city  of  Greenville,  where  I  live,  representing 
a  capital  of  something  like  $400,000;  and  I  do  not  think  I  exaggerate 


OLEOMARGARINE.  323 

when  I  say  it  would  be  likely  to  result  in  a  loss  to  the  mills  of  anj7- 
where  from  3  to  5  cents  per  gallon,  each  cent  being  equivalent  to  40 
cents  per  ton  on  seed.  Or,  taking  the  whole  consumption  of  cotton  seed 
for  manufacturing  purposes,  it  would  mean  a  loss  of  from  $3,000,000 
to  $5,000,000  per  annum  to  the  oil  industry,  each  cent  per  gallon  of  oil 
being  equal  to  $1,000,000  per  annum  on  the  whole  crop  of  cotton  seed. 
This  would  mean,  furthermore  (viewing  it  in  another  light),  that  there 
would  be  a  clear  loss  to  the  oil  industry  of  from  10  to  20  per  cent  of 
their  total  earnings.  Of  course,  there  is  no  doubt  that  this  loss  would 
ultimately  fall  on  the  planter,  who  in  a  large  majority  of  instances  is 
the  small  white  planter  and  the  negro,  and  as  the  working  men  in  the 
northern  and  western  countries  would  be  deprived  of  a  cheap  and 
healthy  substitute  for  the  butter,  the  poor  farmer  of  the  South  would 
get  less  for  his  cotton  seed. 

The  passage  of  this  bill  unquestionably  means  a  blow  to  the  indus- 
trial interests  of  this  entire  country.  I  do  not  mention  the  raisers  of 
cattle  and  hogs,  as  their  case  has  been  already  ably  represented  before 
your  committee.  They  would  also  be  heavy  losers,  and  who  would  be 
the  gainers  by  it?  As  half  of  the  oil  manufactured  is  exported,  it 
would  mean  that  the  foreigner  would  gain  to  half  the  extent  of  the 
Southern  losses,  while  in  this  country  the  only  gainers  would  be  the 
dairymen  of  a  few  States  of  the  Union.  In  our  own  State  of  Missis- 
sippi, where  practically  all  the  available  seed  is  used  by  oil  mills,  the 
loss  on  the  above  basis  would  amount  to  three-quarters  of  a  million  of 
dollars,  which  would  be  equivalent  to  placing  a  tax  of  about  75  cents 
per  bale  on  the  planter's  crop. 

If  the  object  of  the  bill  be  simply  to  prevent  the  sale  of  oleomarga- 
rine as  butter,  we  have  no  objections  whatever  to  a  more  stringent  and 
searching  regulation  than  now  exists,  but  we  certainly  protest  against 
the  injustice  of  hampering  an  industry  in  which  we  are  largely  inter- 
ested by  putting  oleomargarine  under  regulations  that  do  not  apply  to 
other  products  of  a  similar  nature,  and  branding  it  thereby  as  an 
unhealthful  article  of  food.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  entirely  against 
the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  of  our  country  to  tax  one  industry  for 
the  benefit  of  another  industry.  Moreover,  the  passage  of  this  bill 
would  be  an  entering  wedge  and  a  new  argument  to  the  European 
nation  for  putting  prohibitive  duties  on  our  products,  for  the  slur  cast 
upon  oleomargarine  by  the  Grout  bill  will  be  eagerly  seized  upon  by 
the  foreigners,  who  wish  to  keep  out  products,  as  an  evidence  that  we 
ourselves  believe  oleomargarine  to  be  unhealthy. 

It  seems  to  me  very  unfair  that  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine 
are  not  to  be  permitted  to  color  their  product  to  suit  the  public  taste, 
under  a  heavy  penalty,  while  the  manufacturers  of  butter  are  not  to  be 
hampered  in  any  way,  although  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that  nine-tenths 
of  the  butter  put  on  the  market  is  colored  artificially.  I  think  all  that 
the  oleomargarine  people  ask,  and  all  that  we  ask,  is  fair  treatment; 
and  if  there  is  to  be  a  tax  on  color,  then  let  both  industries  be  taxed 
alike. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
our  industry  has  been  built  up  in  comparatively  a  few  years,  until  now 
it  is  one  of  the  most  important  industries  in  the  United  States,  after 
cotton  and  grain.  While  cotton  seed  was  formerly  a  waste  product,  it 
may  be  said  that  our  industry  has  sprung  from  a  waste.  The  South 
now  realizes  from  it  a  revenue  of  from  $30,000,000  to  $50,000,000  per 
annum.  If  this  Grout  bill  should  pass  and  the  oleomargarine  industry 
is  thereby  crippled  or  wholly  destroyed,  it  will  mean  that  one  avenue 


324  OLEOMAKGAEINE. 

of  consumption  is  cut  off  from  the  oil  mill,  and  the  annual  surplus  of 
production  over  and  above  consumption  will  be  doubled.  Any  busi- 
ness man  will  know  what  this  would  mean.  It  would  mean  a  reduction 
of  the  price  of  the  product,  especially  at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of 
each  season. 

In  view  of  all  these  facts,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  beg  leave  to  enter  our 
most  earnest  protest  against  the  passage  of  this  bill. 

STATEMENT  OF  HENRY  BOND,  OF  CHATTANOOGA,  TENN. 

Mr.  BOND.  The  gentleman  who  preceded  me  said  just  about  the  same 
thing  that  I  am  going  to  say,  but  I  did  not  know  he  was  going  to  do  so. 

I  am  engaged  in  the  cotton-seed-crushing  business  and  manufacture 
crude  cot  ton -seed  oil. 

There  are  15  cotton-seed-oil  mills  in  Tennessee,  representing,  in 
investment  and  capital,  about  $2,000,000.  They  employ  about  1,000 
men  and  have  a  weekly  pay  roll  of  about  $10,000. 

I  am  requested  by  these  interests  to  protest  before  this  committee 
against  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill — first,  because  we  are  opposed  to 
class  legislation,  and,  secondly,  because  we.  think  this  particular  bill 
will  work  a  great  hardship  to  our  community.  I  desire  to  give  briefly 
our  reasons  for  so  thinking. 

I  have  here  the  credentials  authorizing  me  to  represent  the  mills  ot 
which  I  speak,  and  I  will  say  that  the  company  of  which  I  am  the  vice- 
president  owns  and  operates  2  of  the  15  mills  in  the  State  of  Tennessee. 

Testimony  heretofore  given  before  your  committee  indicates  that 
about  40,000  barrels  of  cotton-seed  oil  are  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
that  portion  of  oleomargarine  that  is  consumed  in  this  country  annually, 
and  while  we  have  no  definite  data,  the  impression  prevails  that  more 
margarine  oil  is  exported  than  is  used  here. 

The  mills  of  Tennessee  will  crush  this  year  about  150,000  tons  of 
seed  and  make  over  100,000  barrels  of  oil,  or  probably  just  about 
enough  to  fill  the  requirements  of  the  oleomargarine  trade. 

The  oleomargarine  manufacturers,  however,  use  only  the  very  best 
grades  of  cotton-seed  oil  wherever  they  can  find  it,  and  pay  higher 
prices  than  the  mills  can  obtain  from  any  other  source,  and  we  believe 
that  their  demands  go  a  long  way  toward  setting  the  market  price  for 
the  whole  cotton  seed- oil  production. 

After  it  was  known  last  spring  that  Congress  would  not  (for  some 
time,  at  least)  further  impede  the  oleomargarine  business  the  price  of 
cotton  seed  oil  at  once  advanced,  and  the  advance  was  maintained  all 
during  the  summer  and  fall,  until  Congress  reassembled  and  renewed 
the  attack  upon  it.  Since  then,  although  other  conditions  seemed  to 
warrant  the  expectation  of  higher  prices,  oil  has  declined  about  5  cents 
per  gallon,  or  $2.50  per  barrel,  and  we  believe  this  decline  is  due  to 
the  threatened  legislation  against  oleomargarine,  which  deters  the 
manufacturers  from  making  purchases  for  future  use. 

Favorable  weather  all  fall  and  winter  had  expedited  the  picking  and 
ginning  of  the  cotton  and  the  marketing  of  the  seed.  That  part  of  the 
business  is  practically  over  now,  and  there  is  no  way  in  which  the  mills 
can  protect  themselves,  so  that  they  alone  will  have  to  bear  the  burden 
of  the  loss  this  season. 

Hereafter,  however,  should  the  Grout  bill  or  any  similar  prohibitory 
measure  become  law,  and  these  conclusions  be  correct,  the  mills,  in 
self- protection,  will  be  forced  to  reduce  the  price  of  seed  to  correspond 
with  the  reduced  price  of  oil,  and  the  farmers  will  then  have  to  bear 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  325 

the  loss.  A  decline  of  $2.50  per  barrel  in  the  price  of  oil  will  necessi- 
tate a  reduction  of  $2.50  per  ton  in  the  price  of  seed ;  and  upon  that 
basis  the  Tennessee  mills  alone  would  pay  out  for  the  quantity  of  seed 
used  this  year  $375,000  less  than  they  would  otherwise  do,  even  if  there 
should  be  no  further  decline  in  the  market  price  of  oil;  and  this  loss 
would  fall  upon  the  class  of  farmers  least  able  to  bear  it. 

This  statement  applies  with  equal  force  and  truth  to  every  oil  mill, 
and  on  the  same  basis  will  indicate,  on  the  2,000,000  tons  of  seed 
bought  by  the  400  mills,  an  annual  loss  to  the  farmers  of  the  South  of 
$5,000,000;  and  this,  mark  you,  is  caused  merely  by  the  fear  of  the 
enactment  of  the  law.  What  depression  would  result  from  its  actual 
enactment  can  only  be  conjectured. 

A  few  words  about  our  product: 

The  manufacture  of  cotton  seed  oil  is  conducted  entirely  by  means  of 
machinery,  and  with  the  utmost  cleanliness.  From  the  time  it  leaves 
the  fields  as  seed  cotton  until  it  leaves  the  mills  as  oil,  it  is  not  touched 
by  hand.  As  it  is  the  cheapest  edible  oil  known,  it  is  not  possible  to 
profitably  adulterate  it.  Its  nutritive  qualities  are  so  well  recognized 
by  physicians  that  its  use  is  often  indicated  by  them,  even  in  its  crude 
state,  to  those  of  their  patients  who,  suffering  from  tuberculosis  and 
other  wasting  diseases,  are  unable  to  buy  the  higher  priced  olive  and 
cod  liver  oils.  Its  palatability  is  known  by  everyone  engaged  in  its 
manufacture.  Though  oil  mills  run  only  a  few  months  in  the  year,  they 
never  have  any  trouble  in  getting  hands,  and  at  the  time  of  starting  up 
are  usually  overwhelmed  with  applicants.  A  negro  will  quit  any  other 
job  to  get  where  he  can  inhale  the  fragrant  odor  of  the  oil  and  drink  as 
much  of  it  as  he  pleases. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  May  I  ask  the  gentleman  a  question? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  he  will  permit  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  use  any  chemicals  in  the  purification  of  cotton- 
seed oil? 

Mr.  BOND.  We  do  not  refine,  sir.     We  manufacture  only  the  crude  oil. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Are  you  cognizant  of  the  process  of  refining? 

Mr.  BOND.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  In  speaking  of  the  loss  that  is  likely  io  occur  to  the 
planter  in  case  the  amount  of  cotton  seed  oil  used  at  present  in  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  this  country  is  displaced,  you  spoke 
of  it  as  $5.000,000. 

Mr.  BOND.  Five  millions  of  dollars;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  know  what  the  actual  amount  of  cotton-seed 
oil  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  this  country  is? 

Mr.  BOND.  Approximately. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  are  your  figures,  please? 

Mr.  BOND.  Well,  sir,  I  have  stated  that  about  40,000  barrels  are 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  this  country.  That  cor- 
responds with  the  figures  from  the  Treasury  Department  here.  There 
are  something  like  107,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  made,  of  which 
amount  about  10  or  11  per  cent  is  cotton-seed  oil. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  what  is  that  oil  worth  ?  That  would  be  16,000,000 
pounds.  What  is  that  oil  worth  per  pound? 

Mr.  BOND.  I  have  just  stated  in  what  I  have  said  that  it  is  the  very 
best  grade  of  oil,  and  we  think  it  goes  a  long  way  toward  setting  the 
price  for  our  whole  production.  It  is  a  matter  of  fact,  not  of  specula- 
tion, that  the  price  of  oil  advanced  as  soon  as  Congress  adjourned  last 
spring  and  declined  when  this  bill  came  up  again.  The  mills  of  Ten- 


326  OLEOMARGARINE. 

nessee  have  already  actually  experienced  a  loss,  I  think,  of  $2.50  per 
barrel  on  all  oil  that  had  not  been  contracted  for. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  it  is  worth  0  cents^a  pound,  is  it1? 

Mr.  BOND.  Oil? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BOND.  Six  cents  a  pound? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir — that  is,  butter  oil? 

Mr.  BOND.  Not  crude  oil;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  refined  oil,  I  mean? 

Mr.  BOND.  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  refined  oil.  I  do  not  handle 
refined  oil.  The  price  of  crude  oil  in  last  May  varied  from  30  to  31£ 
cents  per  gallon  of  7J  pounds. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Five  cents  a  pound,  then? 

Mr.  BOND.  Not  as  much  as  5  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  that  is  true,  there  being  7£  pounds  to  the  gallon. 

Mr.  BOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  At  that  rate  the  16,000,000  pound-  of  cotton-seed  oil 
would  be  worth  about  $750,000,  would  they  not? 

Mr.  BOND.  What  16,000,000? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  16,000,000  pounds  probably  used  in  the  oleomar- 
garine produced  last  year. 

Mr.  BOND.  In  this  country? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BOND.  Well,  the  oleomargarine  people  buy  the  very  finest  grade 
of  oil,  and  this  number  of  pounds,  as  you  will  understand,  is  after  it 
has  been  refined.  There  is  a  considerable  loss  in  refining.  How  much 
it  is  I  do  not  know;  but  the  16,000,000  of  pounds  represent  more  crude 
oil  than  they  would  in  pounds  of  refined  oil. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  I  see. 

Mr.  BOND.  So  I  think  the  estimate  I  have  made  there  of  100,000 
barrels  is  probably  as  near  as  we  can  get  to  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  One  hundred  thousand  barrels? 

Mr.  BOND.  One  hundred  thousand  barrels  in  this  country;  yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  this  cotton-seed  oil  used  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  other  food  products  besides  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  BOND.  Why,  sir,  I  presume  a  good  deal  of  it  goes  into  creamery 
butter.  It  goes  into  olive  oil,  which  is  largely  used  in  lard.  Compound 
lard  has  a  large  per  cent  of  it.  It  is  used  in  linseed  oil,  undoubtedly. 
It  is  used  by  the  soap  makers. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  used  by  the  lard  people,  you  say. 

Mr.  BOND.  Why,  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PERSON.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  very  largely  used  by  them. 

Mr.  BOND.  I  do  not  know  the  per  cent  that  is  used  in  compound  lard, 
but  I  remember  that  in  1896,  I  believe  it  was,  Swift  &  Co^said  they 
used  500,000  barrels  of  cotton-seed  oil  in  their  compound  lard.  I  have 
no  statistics  as  to  the  quantity  that  is  used  now. 

Mr.  PERSON.  It  is  used  in  butter  color,  always.  It  is  the  medium 
that  carries  the  color  for  butter  color. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  a  very  slight  use,  however. 

Mr.  BOND.  But  the  oleomargarine  people  are  the  best  customers  we 
have.  They  buy  the  finest  grade  of  it  and  pay  the  highest  prices,  and 
if  we  are  deprived  of  their  trade  we  feel  that  we  will  lose  the  best  cus- 
tomer we  have. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  is  there  not  any  way  of  getting  at  the  value  of 
that  refined  oil,  that  butter  oil? 


OLEOMABGAKINE. 


327 


Mr.  BOND.  Why,  you  could  probably  get  that  from  the  oleomargarine 
people,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Where  is  this  oil  refined? 

Mr.  BOND.  There  are  several  refineries  at  Louisville,  and  there  are 
refineries  at  Cincinnati,  New  York,  New  Orleans,  Kansas  City,  Savan- 
nah, Atlanta,  and  Memphis. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  To  get  back  to  the  subject,  the  oil  that  is  used  by  the 
oleomargarine  people  could  not  at  the  outside  amount  to  more  than  a 
million  dollars  in  value,  could  it? 

Mr.  BOND.  A  million  dollars?  I  have  not  made  the  calculation  that 
way.  If,  as  I  figure  it,  they  use  100,000  barrels  of  oil,  that  would  be, 
at,  say,  25  cents  a  gallon,  about  a  million  and  a  quarter  dollars.  But 
the  oil  which  is  used  by  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  sets  the  price 
for  all  of  our  oil.  We  estimate,  in  round  numbers,  that  there  are  about 
forty  gallons  of  oil  in  a  ton  of  seed.  In  practice  we  do  not  get  out  that 
much.  So  you  will  see  that  a  difference  of  a  cent  a  gallon  on  the  oil 
will  make  a  difference  of  about  40  cents  on  a  ton  of  seed.  The  price  of 
seed  has  been  reduced  about  $2.50  a  ton. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  mean  that  the  value  or  price  of  butter  oil,  and  not 
particularly  what  these  people  buy,  sets  the  value  of  your  product,  do 
you  not? 

Mr.  BOND.  Well,  the  quantity  is  small.  I  estimate  that  the  quantity 
is  about  7 £  per  cent  of  our  total  production.  There  are  about  2,000,000 
tons  of  seed  crushed  in  the  South,  and  I  figure  that  about  150,000  tons 
go  into  oleomargarine,  or  about  7J  per  cent. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  know  the  amount  of  exports  of  cotton-seed  oil  ? 

Mr.  BOND.  No,  sir;  of  cotton-seed  oil  entirely,  you  mean? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BOND.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

I  will  say  that  when  I  received  notice  from  these  mills  to  appear  here 
to  represent  them,  I  went  around  in  the  town  in  which  Hived  to  make 
some  inquiries  about  the  sale  of  oleomargarine.  I  was  not  familiar 
with  it.  I  went  to  my  grocer  and  he  told  me  that  his  exclusive  sale  at 
this  season  of  the  year  was  in  1-pound  bars,  each  of  which  was  wrapped 
up  and  branded  in  large  letters  "  Oleomargarine."  He  had  two  grades, 
apparently  alike,  one  of  which  he  sold  at  15  cents  and  the  other  at  20 
cents;  and  he  sold  his  best  butter  at  35  cents.  He  said:  "Here  is  a 
grade  of  butter  that  I  sell  to  you,  but  I  have  a  very  great  difficulty  in 
getting  enough  of  it  to  supply  my  trade."  He  said :  "  I  sell  about  as 
much  oleomargarine  as  I  do  butter.  I  sell  about  500  pounds  of  each 
every  week;  and  no  man  has  ever  bought  from  me  oleomargarine  think- 
ing he  was  getting  butter.  There  is  no  occasion  for  any  deception, 
because  they  call  for  it  and  buy  it  for  what  it  is." 

1  want  to  say  further  that  I  was  in  Sheffield,  Ala.,  two  or  three  weeks 
ago.  We  run  an  oil  mill  there.  As  I  went  into  the  office  of  the  hotel, 
there  was  a  notice  written  in  large  handwriting  and  stuck  up  con- 
spicuously on  the  wall  in  the  hotel  office,  a  We  use  butteiine  in  this 
hotel."  You  do  not  find  that  everywhere.  That  man  was  probably  a 
little  more  honest  than  some  others. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Probably  he  was  conforming  to  the  State- 
law. 

Mr.  BOND.  No,  sir;  not  at  all. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  think  that  is  in  accordance  with  the  State  law  of 
Alabama.  They  have  a  law  in  Alabama  forbidding  the  coloring  of 
oleomargarine,  and  something  regarding  signs. 


328  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  BOND.  I  think  that  indicates  tliat  there  is  very  little  prejudice 
against  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Has  anyone  here  a  list  of  the  Southern 
States  which  have  prohibited  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Oh,  yes;  it  is  right  here  in  the  House  report. 

Mr.  PERSON.  You  can  find  that  in  Bulletin  No.  2(3.  I  will  give  you 
a  synopsis  of  the  laws  of  all  the  States. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Before  the  present  speaker  retires,  I  would 
like  to  ask  some  questions  about  this  matter. 

I  notice,  Mr.  Bond,  that  a  number  of  the  Southern  States  seem  to 
have  forbidden,  by  law,  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  semblance 
of  butter.  The  State  of  Alabama,  the  State  of  Georgia,  the  State  of 
Kentucky,  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  the  State  of  Tennessee,  and 
possibly  other  of  the  cotton  producing  States  seem  to  have  made  it  a 
violation  of  their  statutes  to  sell  colored  oleomargarine. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Those  statutes,  you  know,  differ.  You  can  find 
the  statutes  in  this  report,  1  believe. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  but  they  appear  to  agree  in  the 
respect  that  yellow  oleomargarine  is  prohibited.  How  does  it  happen, 
then,  that  these  great  cotton-raising  communities  have  taken  that  kind 
of  action  against  this  healthful  food  product? 

Mr.  BOND.  I  think  there  must  be  some  mistake  about  the  State  of 
Tennessee,  because  it  is  largely  sold  there.  This  grocer  has  it  on  his 
counter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  what  it  says  here. 

Mr.  BOND.  And  he  told  me  he  sold  500  pounds  of  it  a  week. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  have  the  Tennessee  law  here.  It  provides  that 
any  article  which  is  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter,  and  not  made  exclu- 
sively from  pure  milk  or  cream,  is  prohibited;  but  oleomargarine,  free 
from  color  or  other  ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,  and  made 
in  such  form  and  sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of 
its  true  character,  and  other  imitations,  if  uncolored  and  labeled  with 
their  correct  name,  are  permitted.  Wholesale  packages  are  requested 
to  be  plainly  labeled,  and  a  label  must  accompany  retail  sales. 

That  permits  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  free  from  color. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  does  it  occur  that  in  great  cotton- 
producing  States  like  South  Carolina,  and  Tennessee,  and  Mississippi, 
it  is  a  crime  under  the  State  laws  to  sell  an  article  which  is  so  essential 
to  the  cotton  industry? 

Mr.  BOND.  I  think  that  must  mean  under  the  name  of  butter. 

Tbe  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  under  the  appearance  of  butter? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  The  language  here  is, ;' Oleomargarine  free  from 
color  or  other  ingredients  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter." 

Mr.  BOND.  What  is  the  date  of  that  law? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  That  is  the  law  of  1895. 

Mr.  BOND.  Well,  sir,  that  is  ex  post  facto.  That  is  not  the  present 
law. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Here  is  the  latest  publication  from  the  Agricultural 
Department,  dated  1000.  The  Tennessee  law  is  given  there  in  full. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  I  suppose  that  law  is  observed  by  the 
oleomargarine  people,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  BOND.  I  do  not  know  how  they  do.  The  grocers  sell  it  there  on 
their  counters. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  they  sell  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  BOND.  It  has  the  appearance  of  cow  butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  they  sell  it  for  oleomargarine? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  329 

Mr.  BOND.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Or  do  they  inform  their  customers  that  it  is 
butter? 

Mr.  BOND.  Each  brick  or  print  of  it  is  wrapped  up  separately,  and 
has  the  word  ''oleomargarine/'  in  large  letters,  printed  on  the  outside 
of  the  wrapper. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  That  is  in  accordance  with  this  statute,  which 
says  that  it  can  be  sold,  but  not  in  imitation  of  butter.  It  must  be  free 
irora  color. 

Mr.  BOND.  It  is  not  sold  in  imitation  of  butter.  It  is  sold  as  oleo- 
margarine. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  It  says  here  plainly,  "  But  oleomargarine,  free 
from  color  or  other  ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,"  can  be 
sold. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  you  expect  this  committee  to  be 
more  tender  of  your  cotton-seed  interests  than  the  legislature  of  Ten- 
nessee has  been? 

Mr.  BOND.  Well,  sir,  oleomargarine  is  sold  there  openly.  I  did  not 
know  of  this  law.  I  do  not  think  that  is  the  law  now. 

The  A  CTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  no  doubt  it  is.  This  is  a  compila- 
tion of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  giving  a  statement  of  the  national 
and  State  dairy  laws. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  say  here  for  the  benefit  of  Mr. 
Bond  that  there  is  a  law  in  Tennessee,  but  it  is  practically  inoperative. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  to  say,  the  oleomargarine  manufac- 
turers and  dealers  violate  it!  Is  that  the  idea? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  goods  are  sold  in  the  State  as  oleomargarine  by  the 
retail  dealers  as  well  as  by  the  manufacturers.  There  is  no  attempt  at 
violating  the  law.  The  goods  are  sold  exactly  on  their  merits. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  law  seems  to  prohibit  the  sale  of 
the  article  if  it  is  made  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  and  not  made 
exclusively  from  pure  milk  and  cream.  It  is  stated  here  that  any  arti- 
cle which  is  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter,  and  not  made  exclusively 
from  pure  milk  or  cream,  is  prohibited. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  you  know,  there  are  thousands 
of  laws  on  the  statute  books  which  are  offensive  to  the  mass  of  the 
people  and  are  not  enforced.  That  is  one  of  them. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  There  ought  not  to  be  any  law  in  the  State 
of  Tennessee  which  would  be  in  violation  of  material  interests  such  as 
our  friend  here  has  described,  I  should  say. 

Mr.  CONLEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
Mississippi  law  for  a  moment.  Have  you  it? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  it  here.  In  Mississippi  the  law  pro- 
vides that  packages  of  oleomargarine  or  similarly  manufactured  but- 
ters shall  be  plainly  labeled  with  the  correct  name  of  their  contents, 
and  the  product  shall  be  sold  by  that  name.  A  privilege  tax  of  $5  is 
imposed  upon  persons  selling  the  article  named. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  That  is  simply  a  label  law. 

Mr.  CONLEY.  I  merely  wanted  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  Mississippi  law  does  not  prohibit  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  PERSON.  It  recognizes  its  legality. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Oh,  yes ;  you  can  sell  oleomargarine  of  any  color 
there. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  in  South  Carolina,  which  is  one  of  the 
great  cotton-producing  regions  of  the  country,  I  notice  that  the  State 
has  enacted  a  law  which  says  that  any  article  not  made  wholly  from 


330  OLEOMARGARINE. 

pure  milk  or  cream,  and  in  imitation  of  pure  butter,  is  prohibited;  but 
oleomargarine,  colored  pink,  arid  in  such  form  and  sold  in  such  manner 
as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  is  permitted. 

Now,  do  you  expect  Congress  to  deal  more  tenderly  with  the  cotton- 
seed industry  than  the  legislature  of  South  Carolina  has? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  What  is  the  date  of  that  act,  Senator? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  seems  to  be  the  present  Jaw. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  The  present  law  given  here  is  different  from 
that. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  This  is  a  later  one,  Senator. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  What  I  have  here  is  the  law  of  1896. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  This  publication  is  dated  1900.  It  is  a 
compilation  by  Jft.  A.  Pearson,  well  known  as  an  expert  on  the  dairy 
question. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  What  I  have  is  the  report  of  the  House  hearing. 
They  have  the  last  year's  law. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  report  was  printed  last  March,  and  this  one  was 
just  printed  in  the  last  few  days,  Senator. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  the  point  made  by  me  is  whether  or 
not  the  cotton-seed  industry  will  be  disturbed  if  oleomargarine  is  put 
upon  a  basis  which  will  not  disturb  the  butter  business — that  is  to  say, 
if  it  is  put  upon  the  market  in  such  packages  as  would  not,  by  the  imi- 
tation of  butter,  deceive  the  community  as  to  the  character  of  the 
goods.  That  seems  to  have  been  the  view  taken  by  these  Southern 
States. 

Mr.  BOND.  Yes,  sir.  As  I  said  in  that  paper,  I  do  not  believe  the 
cotton-seed  oil  interest  will  sustain  any  further  loss  after  this  year, 
because  they  will  throw  it  upon  the  man  who  sells  the  cotton  seed. 
They  will  take  care  of  themselves.  They  will  not  pay  him  as  much  for 
the  seed;  that  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  legislature  of 
Tennessee  ought  to  be  looking  out  for  the  raisers  of  seed,  too. 

Mr.  BOND.  How  is  that? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  not  the  legislature  naturally  be  tak- 
ing care  of  the  interests  of  the  agricultural  population  of  the  State? 

Mr.  CONLEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  allow  me  to  interrupt  you.  Are  not  all 
those  laws  old  laws,  enacted  six  or  seven  years  ago  ? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Oh,  no.  The  law  of  South  Carolina  is  that  of 
189G;  Tennessee,  1895.  They  are  not  old  laws.  Virginia  has  a  color 
law  which  was  passed  in  1898.  Louisiana  has  a  law  passed  in  1888; 
Florida,  1881;  Georgia,  1885.  Now,  the  Georgia  law,  according  to  this 
synopsis,  is : 

Imitation  butter  and  cheese  are  denned  as  any  article  not  produced  from  pure 
milk  or  cream — salt,  rennet,  and  coloring  matter  excepted — in  semblance  of  butter 
or  cheese,  and  designed  to  be  used  as  a  substitute  for  either.  Shall  not  be  colored 
to  resemble  butter  or  cheese.  Every  package  must  be  plainly  marked  "  Substitute 
for  butter"  or  u  Substitute  for  cheese,"  and  each  sale  shall  be  accompanied  by  verbal 
notice  and  by  a  printed  statement  that  the  article  is  an  imitation,  the  statement 
giving  also  the  name  of  the  producer.  The  use  of  these  imitations  in  eating  places, 
bakeries,  etc.,  must  be  made  known  by  signs. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  an  anticolor  law. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Of  course;  but  it  does  not  prohibit  the  sale  of 
these  articles. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  does  if  they  are  colored. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Yes;  you  are  right  about  that. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  say  just  here  that  about 
three  weeks  ago  Governor  Hoard  was  down  in  Georgia  trying  to  stir 


OLEOMAKGARINE.  331 

up  some  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  Grout  bill,  and  incidentally  he  got  a 
few  people  in  Atlanta  to  introduce  a  bill  placing  further  restrictions  on 
butteriue.  The  cotton-seed  oil  people  found  it  out  and  killed  the  bill 
in  a  few  days.  That  happened  three  weeks  ago. 

Mr.  CONLEY.  I  was  going  to  state,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  if  you  will  go 
back  a  few  years  in  the  South  everybody  had  prejudices  against  the 
use  of  cotton-seed  oil  in  cooking.  They  raise  it  there,  and  as  I  stated, 
it  comes  from  the  waste.  We  used  to  throw  it  away  and  never  made 
any  use  of  it.  Everybody  was  prejudiced  against  it,  and  it  is  only  in 
the  last  year  or  two  that  it  has  become  so  notoriously  healthful  a  food. 
Since  then  I  am  satisfied  the  laws  have  not  been  changed;  but  at  the 
same  time  the  product  and  the  article  are  sold  in  all  those  States  right 
along  without  any  interruption. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  simply  indicate  the  lawlessness 
of  the  business. 

Mr.  CONLEY.  How  is  that1? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  indicate  a  disposition  on  the 
part  of  those  interested  in  the  business  to  disregard  and  violate  the 
statutes.  That  is  not  a  healthy  sign. 

Mr.  CONLEY.  Well,  1  think  any  one  of  our  Southern  States  can  vio- 
late a  statute  when  they  want  to  do  it,  you  know. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  should  think  that  was  so. 

STATEMENT    OF    WILLIAM    PERSON,  REPRESENTING   AMMON  & 
PERSON,  JERSEY  CITY,  N.  J. 

GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  COMMITTEE:  In  speaking  to  you  of  the  subject 
under  consideration,  it  will  perhaps  be  difficult  to  present  it  to  you  in 
any  way  more  convincing  than  it  has  already  been  given  to  you  by 
those  who  have  heretofore  had  your  patient  and  courteous  attention. 

llepresenting  a  firm  reputed  to  be  one  of  the  largest — and  let  me 
here  impress  upon  you  at  all  times  legitimate — dealers  in  oleomargarine, 
I  may  be  pardoned  for  the  belief  that  as  a  dealer  i  can  give  you  some 
facts  which  will  merit  your  full  consideration,  if  not  your  indorsement. 

In  our  State,  New  Jersey,  we  have  several  hundred  retail  dealers  in 
the  product  duly  licensed  and  under  the  constant  espionage  and  con 
trol  ot  the  revenue  department  of  this  great  Government,  and  as  is 
conceded  by  the  Commissioner,  with  ample  means  in  men  and  money 
to  rigorously  enforce  every  requirement  of  the  severe  regulations  which 
have  from  time  to  time  been  promulgated.    Besides  this,  New  Jersey 
has  a  dairy  commissioner,  who,  as  his  title  indicates,  is  clothed  by  law 
with  full  authority  to  control  the  sale  of  all  butter  substitutes  within 
the  State.    Let  me  here  say  that  New  Jersey  has  the  exceptional  dis- 
tinction of  being  about  the  only  State  the  law  of  which  closely  dove 
tails  or  harmonizes  with  the  Federal  law  in  requiring  every  seller  of 
oleomargarine  to  convey  with  each  sale  his  full  name  and  address, 
together  with  the  amount  and  nature  of  the  article  he  sells  as  a  sub 
stitute  for  butter. 

As  proof  of  this  I  desire  to  have  go  in  the  record  these  examples  of 
tickets  commonly  used  by  dealers  throughout  New  Jersey : 

10  Ibs.  oleomargarine, 

Aminon  &  Person, 

138-140  Ninth  street, 

Jersey  City,  N.  J. 


332  OLEOMAEGAEINE. 

By  the  last  census  you  will  find  that  the  State  of  New  Jersey  is  not 
far  behind  those  which  lead  in  the  magnitude  and  variety  of  its  manu- 
factures, which  leads  mo  to  suggest  that  in  this  continuing  controversy 
between  oleomargarine  and  butter  (good  or  bad)  the  mechanics,  oper- 
atives, artisans,  or  other  workers  for  a  modest  wage  have  rights  which 
a  white  man  is  bound  to  respect,  be  he  butterman  or  Congressman, 
and  should  at  least  be  permitted  to  exercise  his  God  given  and  Consti- 
tutional right  to  cater  to  the  normal  requirements  of  his  inner  man. 

This  brings  me  to  the  point  I  wish  to  make,  that  butter,  the  best  of 
it,  is  now  retailing  at  28  to  30  cents  per  pound,  and  in  some  instances 
double  and  treble  these  figures  when  sold  under  the  mark  of  cattle 
which  carry  the  pretensions  and  prestige  of  a  long  lineage  and  small 
fortunes  invested  in  them  because  of  their  pedigrees.  As  contrary  to 
this  condition,  consider  the  prices  of  the  "poor  man's'7  butter,  which 
under  a  name  designed  to  hinder  its  sale  steadily  and  continously  sells 
at  a  much  lower  price  to  the  everlasting  credit  of  the  little  French 
chemist,  who  first  evolved  it  from  the  fat  of  the  steer  and  gave  to  the 
cattle  interests  of  the  United  States  an  added  impetus  and  value,  and 
to  the  world  at  large  a  food  product,  which,  measured  in  the  light  of 
coming  generations,  will  be  beyond  human  calculation  or  measurement 
in  its  benefit  to  mankind. 

This  may  seem  like  an  overdrawn  statement  from  an  enthusiast,  yet 
let  us  probe  into  the  future  a  trifie  to  see  how  far  away  we  are. 

In  the  hundred  years  intervening  between  1790  and  1890  the  popu- 
lation of  the  United  States  increased  from  3,929,214  to  62,622,250 
people,  or  an  increase  of  1,493  per  cent. 

Is  it  a  wild  proposition  to  suggest  that  in  the  next  hundred  years 
our  population  will  increase  half  as  much  as  it  did  in  the  preceding 
hundred  years,  or,  say,  700  per  cent?  If  you  will  concede  this,  let  me 
mirror  the  future  for  you  in  four  sections  of  time  and  you  will  have  in — 

1925 125,000,000 

1950 230,000,000 

1970 350,000,000 

1990 500,000,000 

Now,  let  us  bear  these  figures  in  mind  while  we  consider  their  rela- 
tion to  the  question  of  butter  versus  butterine.  If  the  estimate  of 
future  population  is  correct,  I  am  bold  to  assert  that  in  the  period 
between  1925  and  1950  there  will  be  no  milk  available  for  the  making 
of  butter,  which  of  course  would  be  no  great  hardship,  provided  you 
or  your  successors  do  not  tax  butterine  out  of  Existence.  You  may 
smile  at  the  gloomy  outlook,  yet  it  is  a  fair  prophecy  in  saying  that  if 
the  present  rate  of  increase  of  population  is  maintained  with  the  esti- 
mated shortage  of  the  cow  supply,  the  supply  of  milk  in  the  coming 
years  will  all  be  required  for  table  purposes,  invalids,  and  let  us  hope 
as  a  saving  and  salvation  for  our  race — butterine. 

In  confirmation  of  this  I  may  cite  Secretary  of  Agriculture  Wilson, 
who  stated  a  short  time  ago  that  there  are  10,000,000  less  cattle  in 
this  country  than  there  were  ten  years  ago.  Think  of  it,  a  decrease  of 
1,000,000  a  year.  His  reason  for  it  was  the  conceded  impoverishment 
of  the  grazing  lands,  which  he  stated  would  only  feed  the  present  num- 
ber of  cattle  at  best. 

Some  of  you  gentlemen  will  recall  the  drought  of  last  summer,  espe- 
cially in  the  eastern  section  of  the  country,  when  many  farmers  sold  a 
part  of  their  herds  because  of  lack  of  pasturage  and  feed,  the  effect  of 
which  is  still  felt  in  an  enhanced  cost  of  those  products  largely  depend- 
ent upon  a  good  grass  crop,  of  which  may  be  instanced  condensed 


OLEOMARGAEINE.  333 

milk,  of  which  one  factory  alone  was  short  1,000,000  cases  of  4  dozen 
cans  each  which  they  had  sold  but  were  unable  to  deliver  because  of 
the  milk  shortage.  The  denuding  of  the  forest  lands  has  in  many 
instances  lowered  the  beds  of  the  rivers,  and  an  open  winter  such  as 
we  are  now  experiencing,  with  a  lack  of  snow,  often  results  in  poor 
crops  and  poor  pastures.  Such  conditions  mean  great  scarcity  of  milk, 
with  invariably  high  prices  for  butter.  Will  it  not — does  it  not  follow 
logically  that  people  of  limited  or  moderate  means  will  be  compelled  to 
use  some  substitute  because  of  their  inability  or  unwillingness  to  pay 
a  high  price  for  the  cow  product? 

This  line  of  thought  prompts  an  answer  to  the  question  put  by  one 
of  the  committee  at  a  previous  session,  as  to  whether  "the  continued 
production  of  butteriue  will  tend  to  decrease  the  price  of  milch  cows?" 
An  answer  may  be  found  in  the  Orange  Judd  Farmer,  which  is  author- 
ity for  the  statement  that  in  1891  there  were  in  the  United  States  268 
cows  to  every  1,000  inhabitants,  and  that  the  average  value  of  these 
cows  was  $21.62  each.  The  figures  given  for  1900  are  259  cows,  at  an 
average  valuation  of  $31.12  each,  an  advance  of  44  per  cent  in  cost 
and  a  decrease  of  about  3J  per  cent  in  ratio  of  increase. 

If  this  is  so,  as  I  think  our  friends  on  the  cow  side  of  the  fence  will 
be  forced  to  admit,  the  predictions  for  the  future  must  be  taken  as 
more  than  conservative.  Further  authority  is  found  in  the  Sussex 
Independent,  of  Deckertown,  N.  J.,  published  in  a  county  which  sup- 
plies one-fifth  of  the  total  milk  product  of  that  State,  and  in  its  issue 
of  February  2  explains  the  scarcity  of  cows  as  follows: 

The  time  was,  and  not  far  distant  either,  that  the  butter-making  farmers  of  these 
grass-growing  midland  counties  made  it  a  point  to  raise  the  greater  portion  of  their 
calves  and  sell  off  those  they  did  not  want  in  September  and  October  for  prices  rang- 
ing from  $3  to  $5  a  head.  Of  late  years  they  feed  the  calf  well  until  it  is  six  or 
eight  weeks  old  and  get  about  double  for  it  what  they  did  when  they  kept  it  from 
four  to  six  months  under  the  old  style.  The  new  method  has  had  a  great  deal  to  do 
with  making  the  supply  of  cows  less,  and  there  is  not  half  the  number  of  cows 
from  up  this  way  marketed  in  Orange  County  that  there  was  fifteen  years  ago. 

In  further  confirmation  of  the  proposition  that  the  supply  of  cows  or 
milk  will  not  keep  pace  with  the  increase  in  population,  it  will  not  be 
gainsaid  that  the  increased  demand  for  milk  in  the  cities  has  already 
caused  a  tremendous  decrease  in  the  production  of  butter  in  all  the 
States  known  as  the  eastern  and  middle  divisions,  and  has  caused  the 
milk  to  flow  from  the  farms  to  the  consumers  in  the  cities  and  towns  of 
those  States.  Indeed,  so  much  is  this  the  case  that  statistics  of  the 
railroads  known  as  milk  roads  will  show  that  the  average  haul  of  milk 
has  doubled,  and  in  some  instances  trebled,  in  the  past  ten  or  fifteen 
years,  showing  beyond  cavil  how  widely  the  territory  has  extended 
which  contributes  to  the  milk  supply  of  the  centers  of  population. 
Are  there  any  who  will  hazard  a  prediction  that  in  twenty-five  years 
butter  will  not  be  a  luxury  and  butterine  more  of  a  necessity  than  it  is 
even  now?  If,  as  I  believe,  the  future  has  this  in  store  for  us,  why  not 
prepare  for  it,  and  make  ready  for  the  inevitable  condition  which  will 
confront  those  who  will  come  after  us,  but  who,  if  this  tax  is  permitted 
to  become  a  law,  will  certainly  not  build  monuments  to  your  states- 
manship or  pronounce  eulogies  on  your  foresight.  If  these  suggestions 
do  not  meet  your  approval,  let  me  in  all  seriousness  ask  your  approval 
of  a  plan  which  I  am  sure  will  quickly  have  the  indorsement  of  every 
farmer  in  the  land  and  will  certainly  relieve  you  gentlemen  of  all  pres- 
sure from  your  constituents  to  vote  for  the  present  bill. 

Remove  all  tax  on  oleomargarine  and  instead  leave  to  the  States 
such  regulations  as  will  permit  the  farmer  to  work  up  his  milk  with  the 


334  OLEOMARGARINE. 

materials  which  are  also  raised  on  the  farm  and  which  go  to  make  oleo- 
margarine, and  so  render  him  independent  of  the  creameries,  which 
are  rapidly  growing  into  a  monopoly  or  trust  and  who  pay  what  they 
like  to  the  milk  producer. 

Another  reason,  and  a  strong  one,  for  the  removal  of  taxes,  espe- 
cially the  special  tax  of  $48  per  annum  on  retail  dealers,  is  the  inabil- 
ity of  small  storekeepers  to  pay  it.  The  larger  ones  do  not  find  it  a 
hardship,  but  the  poor  widow  or  old  man  struggling  to  eke  out  a  bare 
living  does  not  ordinarily  have  $48  in  a  lump  at  one  time;  besides, 
does  not  sell  sufficient  to  make  the  $48  in  the  course  of  a  year.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  can  not  compete  with  large  tea  and  grocery  companies, 
who,  with  hundreds  of  branch  stores,  buy  butter  in  large  quantities 
and  retail  it  at  cost  price  as  an  advertisement  to  draw  customers  for 
tea  and  coffee,  which  yield  large  profits.  Thus  the  poor  people  trading 
with  the  lone  widow  and  old  man  are  prevented  by  law  from  sharing  in 
one  of  God's  richest  blessings  in  the  shape  of  a  healthful,  wholesome 
food. 

To  a  layman,  it  would  seem  that  oleomargarine  is  no  more  an  object 
of  Federal  taxation  than  any  other  of  the  thousands  of  food  products, 
original  and  simulated,  all  of  which  are  susceptible  of  proper  control 
by  State  legislatures.  In  disposing  of  this  feature  of  the  question ,  let 
me  ask,  is  it  not  crowding  the  mourners  pretty  close,  especially  in  dis- 
tricts where  butter  is  not  made,  to  compel  its  residents  to  pay  tribute 
to  Uncle  Sam  who  now  has  an  annoying  surplus  of  quickly  acquired 
wealth,  and  to  the  private  firms  engaged  in  the  creamery  business? 

Doing  business  in  a  State  where  the  law  is  regulative,  not  prohibi- 
tive, our  experience  in  the  selling  of  oleomargarine  may  be  different 
from  those  who  do  business  in  States  where  its  sale  is  not  permitted  at 
all.  In  New  Jersey,  with  its  thousands  of  mechanics,  mill  operatives, 
and  other  earners  of  small  wages,  there  has  been  developed  a  large 
and  widely  distributed  trade  in  oleomargarine,  which  is  called  for  and 
sold  as  such,  bearing  every  mark  and  label  called  for  by  both  the  Fed- 
eral and  State  laws. 

That  the  trade  is  large  and  constantly  growing  larger  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  we  advertise  our  goods  constantly  and  extensively,  and  per- 
sonally urge  upon  the  grocers  of  the  State  the  merits  of  our  goods  as 
a  cheaper  and  better  article  than  the  process  or  other  grades  of  butter 
that  their  class  of  trade  permits  them  to  purchase. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  allow  me  to  interrupt  you  just  at 
this  point  to  ask  a  question? 

Mr.  PERSON.  Certainly,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  appears  that  the  law  of  New  Jersey  pro- 
vides that  any  article  made  wholly  or  partly  out  of  any  fat,  oil,  etc., 
not  from  pure  niilk  or  cream,  artificially  colored  in  imitation  of  pure 
yellow  butter,  is  prohibited. 

Mr.  PERSON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  do  you  manage  to  do  business  in  yel- 
low oleomargarine  in  New  Jersey,  then? 

Mr.  PERSON.  We  have  had  that  question  settled  by  the  courts,  Mr 
Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  the  settlement? 

Mr.  PERSON.  I  can  not  recall  just  what  the  decision  of  the  court 
was,  but  it  was  sufficiently  in  our  favor  to  enable  us  to  sell  the  goods 
as  we  sell  them. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  the  decision  of  the  court? 

Mr.  PERSON.  The  decision  of  the  court  was  that  if  the  goods  carried 


OLEOMARGARINE.  335 

any  artificial  color  they  were  not  to  be  sold,  but  we  have  goods  in  our 
market  made  from  a  richer  oil  that  gives  us  a  color  that  will  sell  in 
our  market. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  you  find  it  possible  to  get  a  good 
trade  in  oleomargarine  that  is  not  colored  in  imitation  of  pure  yellow 
butter? 

Mr.  PERSON.  No;  our  goods  have  a  color. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  is  it  the  color  of  pure  yellow  butter? 

Mr.  PERSON.  It  is  the  color  of  yellow  butter.  I  will  show  you  the 
colors  directly,  Senator,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  go  on. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  was  simply  curious  to  know  how  you  did 
such  a  good  business  there  with  that  law. 

Mr.  PERSON.  This  is  the  situation  in  our  State,  and  has  made  many 
of  the  grocers  ready  converts  to  the  sale  of  oleomargarine,  and,  being 
in  close  touch  with  customers  in  their  neighborhood,  has  helped  to 
popularize  oleomargarine  in  all  the  large  cities  and  towns  of  the  State, 
while  even  in  strictly  farming  sections  farmers  are  buying  it  openly 
and  above  board,  and  blessing  their  lucky  stars  they  can  sell  their  milk 
and  for  a  part  of  its  returns  purchase  an  article  which  they  admit  is 
better  and  more  uniform  than  they  could  themselves  produce. 

Let  me  now  speak  of  the  color  phase  of  the  question.  If  you  gentle- 
men could  get  out  and  among  the  dealers  of  a  great  State,  as  we  do  in 
our  business,  I  am  sure  you  would  get  some  new  and  peculiar  ideas  of 
the  so-called  color  of  butter.  Like  the  human  race,  butter  is  of  all  sorts 
of  colors  and  conditions,  with  sufficient  and  varying  shades  of  color  as 
to  well  typify  almost  every  race  on  the  globe,  except  our  African 
brother,  the  black.  I  have  here  fourteen  different  standard  shades  of 
yellow  (and  there  are  still  others)  which  you  can  find  reproduced  in  the 
butter  of  commerce. 

[Mr.  Person  at  this  point  exhibited  samples  of  color  to  the  committee.] 

Mr.  PERSON  (continuing).  Every  one  of  those,  Senator,  is  a  yellow. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  find  it  possible  to  sell  oleomarga- 
rine of  that  color  [indicating  very  dark  shade]  in  New  Jersey? 

Mr.  PERSON.  No,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  labeled  "  95— D." 

Mr.  PERSON.  But  I  will  promise  you,  on  the  word  of  a  man,  that 
those  are  all  honest,  straight  yellow  colors  or  shades. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  do  you  find  it  possible  to  sell  oleo- 
margarine in  New  Jersey  of  the  color  indicated  upon  that  slip? 

Mr.  PERSON.  No,  sir;  not  here. 

Mr.  JELKE.  But  it  is  sold  in  Cuba. 

Mr.  PERSON.  In  the  French  islands,  in  Martinique,  and  Porto  Rico 
they  demand  a  very  high,  rich  color. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  This  [indicating  another  color]  appears  to 
me  to  be  a  light  orange. 

Mr.  PERSON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING-  CHAIRMAN.  Will  oleomargarine  colored  in  that  shade 
sell 

Mr.  PERSON  (interrupting).  We  have  seen  some  of  the  high-priced 
Sharpless  butter  in  the  height  of  the  season  that  was  I  think  I  may 
fairly  say,  colored  as  highly  as  that;  was  it  not,  Mr.  Jelke"? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  mean  to  inquire  is,  can  you  sell 
oleomargarine  that  is  colored  in  that  shade? 

Mr.  PERSON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  In  New  Jersey? 

Mr.  PERSON.  Yes,  sir. 


336  OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Without  any  prejudice  on  the  part  of  the 
poor  people? 

Mr.  PERSON.  Oh,  there  is  some  prejudice  as  to  that,  because  that  is 
a  very  high  color. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  have  seen  that  color  of  oleomargarine  and  butter  both 
sold  in  St.  Louis. 

Mr  PERSON.  But  I  do  not  think  the  majority  of  people  would  care 
to  have  it  as  highly  colored  as  that. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Of  course  that  is  not  a  reasonable  color. 

Mr.  PERSON.  No;  that  is  what  we  would  call  a  highly  colored  butter. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Those  are  only  a  few  shades,  practically. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  point  out  the  color  there  which  is 
salable  in  New  Jersey  1 

Mr.  PERSON.  That  [indicating  sample]  is  about  it,  is  it  not,  Mr. 
Jelke? 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  think  that  would  be  nearer  [indicating  another  sample]. 

Mr.  PERSON.  We  have  a  very  light  yellow  there. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is  this:  Your  law 
there  seems  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  if  it  is  artificially 
colored  in  imitation  of  pure  yellow  butter.  That  seems  to  be  prohibited. 

Mr.  PERSON.  The  trade  in  our  State  is  in  the  highest  quality  of  goods. 
We  require  the  highest  quality. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  I  want  to  know  what  decision  your 
courts  have  made  which  enables  you  to  sell  oleomargarine  in  New 
Jersey. 

Mr.  PERSON.  We  are  permitted  to  sell  it  where  the  State  can  not 
prove,  by  analysis,  that  the  goods  carry  an  artificial  color. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  do  not  color  the  goods'? 

Mr.  PERSON.  We  have  them  made  for  us. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  reference  to  that  decision,  if  the 
gentleman  will  permit  me  to  give  it. 

Mr.  PERSON.  Not  until  I  am  through,  if  you  please. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  see  it. 

Mr.  PERSON.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  you  should  show  it  to  the 
Senator. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  proceed,  sir. 

Mr.  PERSON  (continuing  his  remarks).  I  have  here  14  different 
standard  shades  of  yellow  (and  there  are  still  others)  which  you  can 
find  reproduced  in  the  butter  of  commerce;  but  let  me  say,  in  justice  to 
the  would-be  monopolists  of  the  national  color  of  China,  that  the  darker 
shades  are  used  by  those  who  export  butter  to  the  French  and  other 
islands  near  our  new  possessions.  It  is  singular,  yet  true,  that  differ- 
ent localities  in  the  same  State  often  call  for  lighter  or  darker  shades 
in  their  butter;  and  while  nature  often  responds  to  new  aud  peculiar 
demands  of  humanity,  she  has  not  yet  produced  the  cow  that  will  give 
14  shades  or  more  of  yellow  butter  that  are  required  to  meet  the 
demand.  If,  therefore,  the  Grout  bill  becomes  a  law  the  creamery  men 
of  the  West  will  have  the  privilege  of  using  auy  number  of  so-termed 
yellow  colors,  while  the  maker  or  seller  of  the  substitute  will  be  limited 
to  a  solitary,  separate,  and  painfully  distinctive  white,  which  only  the 
sense  of  taste  will  enable  a  consumer  to  detect  from  lard. 

It  is  constantly  asserted  and  reiterated  by  those  behind  this  bill  that 
it  is  in  the  interest  of  and  primarily  for  the  benefit  of  the  "poor  farmer," 
which,  I  take  it,  eliminates  the  rich  farmer  from  any  interest  or  con- 
cern in  its  outcome.  If  so,  I  oppose  this  bill  as  a  fanner  myself,  owning 
a  few  acres  in  New  Jersey,  whereon  I  assure  you  I  can  beat  all  my 


OLEOMARGAKINE.  337 

neighbors  in  securing  a  crop  of  stones,  showing  that  I  am  the  poorest 
farmer  in  the  bunch,  yet  with  my  two  little  Jersey  cattle  I  gain  a 
revenue  sufficient  to  compensate  me  for  my  ignorance  in  other  direc- 
tions, as  my  milk  pays  me  much  more  handsomely  than  any  other  part 
of  my  operations  as  a  fanner,  and  is  a  proposition  which  applies  to 
every  other  farmer  in  the  county,  the  majority  of  whom  sell  milk  to  its 
residents  and  are  better  satisfied  with  the  returns  than  those  from 
any  other  product. 

There  is,  however,  a  more  serious  aspect  to  this  bill  from  the  farmer's 
point  of  view  which,  if  they  rightly  understood  it,  they  would  be  less 
ready  to  be  used  and  quoted  as  disciples  of  the  false  creed  and  doc- 
trines which  have  been  conceived  in  selfishness  and  sin,  born  under 
misconception  and  falsehood  and  practiced  with  deception  toward  the 
cow  owners  and  consumers  until  the  real  merits  of  the  question  have 
been  hidden  and  obscured  in  a  mighty  clamor  which  has  been  manu- 
factured for  the  present  occasion,  until  even  the  representatives  of  the 
whole  people  have  been  cajoled  and  misled  into  an  indorsement  of  an 
act  intended  to  but  partially,  at  most,  benefit  a  class,  instead  of  the 
mass,  of  the  people  they  are  supposed  to  represent. 

I  contend  that,  far  from  injuring  the  farmer,  the  oleomargarine  indus- 
try can  be  made  a  positive,  lasting  benefit  to  him.  At  present  in 
States  prohibiting  oleomargarine  the  milk  producer  must  sell  either  to 
the  milk  dealer  or  to  the  creamery  man.  If  this  is  true  then  would  it 
also  be  true  that  if  oleomargarine  makers  were  operating  in  all  the 
States  a  larger  and  still  more  profitable  market  for  milk  would  be 
gained,  as  the  milk  producer  would  have  another  large  and  steady  com- 
petitor for  his  product,  with  a  certainty  of  still  better  prices;  in  proof 
of  which  many  farmers  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey  are  on  record  who 
formerly  sold  their  total  product  to  the  factories  in  those  States. 

Now,  in  harmony  with  what  I  have  just  stated,  I  want  to  digress  and 
say  this:  That  we  have  in  New  Jersey  a  county  called  Sussex,  which, 
as  I  have  already  stated,  produces  the  great  bulk  of  the  milk  that  is 
sold  in  the  State  as  milk.  Owing  to  the  agitation  in  the  State  legisla- 
ture regarding  oleomargarine,  I  have  personally  visited  hundreds  of 
farmers  in  Sussex  County,  all  of  whom  were  in  accord  in  saying  that 
they  got  better  prices  for  their  milk  when  we  had  oleomargarine  factories 
in  New  Jersey  and  New  York  than  they  have  ever  been  able  to  get 
since. 

That  I  am  not  alone  in  this  contention  I  submit  the  following  extract 
from  the  July  report,  1895,  of  the  Hon.  Ueorge  W.  Eoosevelt,  United 
States  consul  at  Brussels,  Belgium: 

Some  time  since,  France  sent  a  delegation  to  Holland  for  the  purpose  of  studying 
the  methods  employed  there  for  the  suppression  of  frauds  in  butter  making,  and  also 
to  ascertain  if  the  manufacture  of  margarine  (oleomargarine,  butterine)  has  been 
favorable  to  agricultural  interests.  The  report  contains  the  attestation  of  seven 
mayors  of  communes  in  southern  Holland,  snowing  that  since  the  introduction  of 
the  margarine  industry  in  that  country  (Holland)  not  only  has  the  price  of  milk 
increased,  but  also  the  number  of  cattle,  which  plainly  shows  that  the  industry  in 
question  has  become  a  source  of  profit  to  the  farmers. 

That  buttterine  is  a  "large"  subject  is  already  well  attested  by  the 
mass  of  testimony  that  has  been  adduced  before  the  lower  House,  like- 
wise by  the  testimony  which  has  been  presented  to  this  committee,  and 
by  the  more  painful  fact  that  an  extraordinary  large  tax  is  sought  to  be 
placed  upon  the  product  which  is  the  subject  of  this  discussion.  I  ask 
the  committee  to  bear  with  me  a  few  minutes  longer,  in  order  to  say  that 
the  most  bitter  of  our  opponents  no  longer  oppose  oleomargarine  on 
the  ground  of  unhealthfuluess  or  impurity.  On  the  contrary,  the  con- 

S.  Rep.  2043— 22 


338  OLEOMABGARINE. 

sensus  of  expert,  authoritative  opinion  throughout  the  world  is  in  favor 
of  its  absolute  purity  in  its  inception  or  basic  materials,  and  thorough 
cleanliness  in  their  manipulation  and  the  completed  product,  and  to-day, 
if  exact  justice  were  done,  the  sign  and  synonym  of  perfect  purity, 
without  suspicion  of  dross  or  alloy,  would  be  the  words,  "Pure  as  but- 
terine."  For  what  other  food  product  under  the  sun  can  the  same  be 
said?  Take  any  list  of  foods  sold  by  the  grocer,  or  any  other  purveyor 
of  eatables,  and  instantly  you  will  be  confronted  with  the  suggestion 
that  the  bulk  of  them  are  open  to  the  suspicion  of  sophistication  or 
substitution  of  their  most  important  or  essential  elements.  This  asser- 
tion applies  to  butter  more  readily  than  to  many  other  food  necessi- 
ties, as  is  evidenced  by  the  efforts  that  have  been  made  for  some  years 
past  to  control  the  sale  of  renovated  or  process  butter,  and  which  in 
truth  is  more  urgently  required  than  the  commonly  advertised  and 
open  sale  of  oleomargarine. 

It  is  the  good  fortune  of  this  Government  to  have  in  its  Department 
of  Agriculture  one  who  has  a  world-wide  fame  as  an  expert  on  dairy 
products.  I  refer  to  Prof.  Henry  B.  Alvord,  chief  of  the  dairy  division. 
This  gentleman  is  on  record  as  a  consistent  advocate  of  the  purity  of 
our  dairy  products  and  as  opposed  to  all  sham  and  fraud  in  the  sale 
of  substitutes;  willing  that  oleomargarine  shall  be  sold  as  such,  and 
maintaining  that  the  greater  and  more  subtle  fraud — renovated  butter — 
should  be  under  the  regulation  of  the  Government. 

To  show  this  I  am  permitted  to  read  a  letter  from  Professor  Alvord 
to  a  prominent  physician,  giving  his  views  on  renovated  butter.  It  is 
as  follows : 

FEBRUARY  8,  1900. 
Dr.  J.  J.  BAUMANN, 

661  Jersey  Avenue,  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Your  inquiry  has  been  received  relating  to  process  or  renovated  butter. 

We  have  nothing  printed  upon  this  subject,  and  it  would  be  impossible  to  give  you 
a  full  account  of  it  within  the  limits  of  a  letter. 

Briefly,  it  is  butter  which  has  become  unmerchantable,  or  what  we  would  call  bad 
butter,  running  through  all  the  degrees  of  badness,  bought  up  cheaply,  brought 
together  in  large  quantity,  reduced  to  a  limpid  oil  by  melting,  and  clarified  by  both 
chemical  and  mechanical  processes,  which  are  more  or  less  secret.  The  oil  is  then 
drawn  off,  a  semblance  of  the  crystallization  or  granulation  of  butter  fat  is  obtained 
by  chilling,  usually  by  spraying  the  fat  into  ice  water,  and  then  it  is  rechurned  with 
more  or  less  sour  milk  or  buttermilk  to  give  it  the  new  flavor,  salted,  and  made  up 
for  market. 

It  is  in  this  form  just  what  the  name  "renovated"  implies.  Unless  adulterated  with 
other  fats,  which  is  not  usual,  it  can  be  claimed  to  be  pure  butter,  as  far  as  chemical 
composition  is  concerned.  But  many  of  the  characteristics  of  good  and  fresh  butter 
are  lacking,  and  the  renovated  article  deteriorates  very  rapidly  unless  it  is  kept 
quite  cold. 

The  chief  objection  to  this  renovated  butter  is  that  it  is  sold  in  large  quantities 
under  misrepresentation  in  place  of  fresh  creamery  butter,  and  at  prices  much  above 
its  actual  value.  Fraud  upon  purchasers  and  consumers  is  thus  perpetrated,  and 
this  is  the  feature  connected  with  the  business  which  needs  governmental  interfer- 
ence and  regulation. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  HENRY  E.  ALVORD. 

I  have  here  the  original  letter,  which  substantiates  what  I  have  read. 

Further  evidence  ot  the  necessity  for  the  regulation  of  this  fraud  is 
found  in  the  laws  which  have  been  passed  here  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  as  well  as  in  some  of  the  States,  and  are  published  in  Bul- 
letin No.  26  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  which  you  now  have 
before  you.  These  laws  are  intended  to  secure  in  this  District  and  in 
the  States  mentioned  a  standard  for  pure  butter,  and  require,  in  the 
District  of  Columbia:  88  per  cent  of  fat,  12  per  cent  of  water,  5  per  cent 
of  salt.  Iowa :  80  per  cent  of  fat,  not  over  15  per  cent  of  water,  not  over 


OLEOMARGARINE.  339 

(j  per  cent  of  salt.     Indiana:  80  per  cent  of  fat.     Georgia:  80  per  cent 
of  fat.     Oregon  :  Not  over  14  per  cent  of  water. 

I  might  say,  in  addition,  that  these  figures  of  water  and  salt  open  up 
vistas  of  considerable  adulteration  or  "  filling." 

Besides  this,  New  York,  Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania,  and  one  or  two 
Western  States  ( I  think  they  are  Wisconsin  and  Michigan,  are  they  not?) 
have  laws  providing  for  the  selling  of  process  butter  under  its  true  name. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  PERSON.  But  all  of  which  are  evaded  or  defied  because  of  the 
difficulty  of  its  detection  when  sold  as  the  pure  butter  of  the  "poor 
farmer"  or  his  master,  the  creamery  man.  Contrast  this  with  the  con- 
ditions surrounding  oleomargarine,  which  is  subject  to  the  laws  of 
thirty-two  States  and  the  Federal  law,  which  spreads  over  and  embraces 
every  sale  of  over  10  pounds  from  the  dealer  to  the  consumer  through 
the  monthly  reports  which  the  revenue  law  exacts. 

Taking  the  figures  of  the  New  York  butter  market — the  largest  in  the 
country — as  an  index,  the  receipts  of  butter  there  during  1900  show  an 
increased  production  of  that  article,  the  excess  in  1900  over  1899  being 
48,000  packages,  the  large  falling  off  in  exports  proving  that  the  home 
consumption  is  increasing  rapidly,  and  also  proves  that  the  price  of 
butter  in  other  countries  is  less  than  in  the  United  States,  as  Canada 
and  Australia  undersell  the  United  States  in  the  English  and  other 
Kuropean  markets,  which  all  tends  to  illustrate  clearly  that  through 
the  operation  of  the  tax  laws  against  oleomargarine  and  the  import  duty 
against  butter,  the  people  of  the  United  States  are  compelled  to  pay 
more  for  their  butter  than  people  of  other  countries. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  May  I  interrupt  you  a  moment.  Do  you  know  what  the 
receipts  were  in  New  York  in  1898  ?  Have  you  got  those  figures  there? 

Mr.  PERSON.  No,  I  have  not;  but  these  are  figures  that  I  have 
taken 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is,  to  show  an  increase  in  receipts  in  New  York? 

Mr.  PERSON.  Yes,  sir.  I  had  no  idea  of  making  a  dig  at  the  Chicago 
butter  market. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  I  do  not  care  about  that.  I  do  not  belong  to 
Chicago. 

Mr.  PERSON.  I  have  but  recently  learned  of  the  proposition  made  by 
a  gentleman  who  has  previously  appeared  before  this  committee,  which, 
in  my  opinion,  is  a  fair  and  full  solution  of  the  unfortunate  condition 
you  gentlemen  have  to  consider,  and  if  our  friends  on  the  opposite  side 
desire  to  meet  us  on  a  fair  basis,  it  will,  I  think,  be  found  in  that  sug- 
gestion, which  is,  that  the  butter  and  oleomargarine  interests  agree 
upon  distinctive  well-defined  shades  of  yellow  color,  by  which  their 
respective  products  can  instantly  and  positively  be  identified.  The 
numerous  shades  of  that  color,  some  of  which  are  very  marked,  cer- 
tainly afford  full  opportunity  to  sharply  define  the  limit  of  color  which 
either  product  shall  not  transgress  or  appropriate,  and  which  will 
afford  the  public  every  chance  to  exercise  its  judgment  in  deciding 
which  article  they  shall  select  as  a  lubricant  for  their  bread  or  other 
purposes. 

Believing  in  the  honesty  of  many  of  those  who  would  have  the  Grout 
bill  as  a  remedy  for  their  supposed  wrongs,  and  in  the  rights  of  the 
oleomargarine  makers  and  dealers,  whose  interests  would  be  annihilated 
by  a  law  which  forces  them  to  bleach  out  whatever  shade  of  yellow  their 
goods  might  develop  from  the  basic  materials  used,  it  will,  1  think,  appeal 
to  you,  as  fair-minded  men,  that  the  suggestion  as  to  separate  shades  of 
yellow  should  be  accepted  by  both  sides,  and  so  end  this  unpleasant 


340  OLEOMARGARINE. 

and  interminable  warfare  between  two  large  and  equally  important 
industries. 

For  this  much  to  be  desired  culmination  there  are  almost  unlimited 
opportunities,  some  of  which  may  be  found  in  the  creamery  associa- 
tions on  one  side  and  the  makers  of  oleomargarine  on  the  other — the 
representatives  of  both  of  which  could  privately,  or  in  public  conven- 
tion, arrange  full  details.  I  am  sure  that  one  half  of  the  effort  made  by 
the  butter  interests,  if  rightly  directed  toward  a  mutual  understanding 
and  purpose  to  protect  the  right  of  the  opposing  side,  would  be 
promptly  and  effectively  aided  by  the  butterine  or  oleomargarine 
advocates. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  a  few  questions. 

Mr.  PERSON.  Certainly,  Mr.  Chairman.  But  do  not  ask  me  as  a  law- 
yer. Ask  me  as  a  layman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  as  a  business  man.  It  appears  here 
that  the  legislature  of  New  Jersey  has  passed  a  law  making  it  a 
criminal  offense  to  make  or  sell  oleomargarine  which  is  colored  with 
so-called  anuotto,  so  as  to  make  it  resemble  the  color  of  butter. 

Mr.  PERSON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  you  say  that  there  has  been  a  decision 
of  the  supreme  court  of  New  Jersey  which  permits  you,  as  a  citizen  of 
that  State,  to  sell  oleomargarine  in  the  State  of  New  Jersey  regardless 
of  its  color  ? 

Mr.  PERSON.  No;  I  did  not  say  that,  Senator. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  On  the  theory  that  the  color  arose  from 
the  material  out  of  which  it  was  manufactured? 

Mr.  PERSON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  without  arti- 
ficial coloring  matter  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers,  by  the  use  of 
the  natural  ingredients  that  enter  their  product,  can  produce  these 
colors'? 

Mr.  PERSON.  Not  these  colors — no.  I  simply  say  this,  Senator: 
That  the  oleomargaiine  makers  can,  by  a  selection,  at  the  proper  time 
of  the  year,  of  the  cotton-seed  and  animal  or  oleo  oils,  pick  out  the  rich- 
est oils,  which  carry  with  them  a  color  of  their  own.  I  think  any  gen- 
tleman will  bear  me  out  in  saying  that  cotton- seed  oil  has  a  color  of  its 
own  and  so  has  oleo  oil. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Can  they  produce,  for  example,  the  color 
of  June  butter? 

Mr.  PERSON.  No,  sir;  far  from  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Can  you  sell  oleomargarine  that  is  not  of 
that  color? 

Mr.  PERSON.  The  June  color? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  PERSON.  Yes,  sir.     What  is  the  June  color? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  as  I  understand,  the  ordinary  con- 
stituents of  oleomargarine  produce  a  white  product. 

Mr.  PERSON.  No,  sir;  that  is  an  error. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  we  have  been  misinformed  here. 

Mr.  JELKE.  You  are  mistaken  in  that. 

Mr.  PERSON.  What  do  you  mean  ? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  do  not  believe  anybody  testified  that  it  was  a 
pure  white  color. 

Mr.  PERSON.  White  is  not  a  color. 

Mr.  JELKE.  It  is  a  sort  of  grayish  white,  I  think. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  On  the  order  of  the  color  of  lard,  for 
example  ? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  341 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  the  Senator  will  allow  me,  I  will  state  that  cotton- seed 
oil  has  a  sort  of  greenish  tinge.  You  will  notice  that  in  those  colors 
there  is  a  great  variety  of  tint,  and  none  of  the  14  yellows  that  are  there 
look  like  butter  colors.  They  have  a  sort  of  greenish  tint. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  They  do  not  all  of  them  look  like  yellows, 
for  that  matter.  I  may  be  a  little  blind  on  color. 

Mr.  PERSON.  Well,  I  maybe  blind  myself,  sir. 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  mixture  with  lard  andoleo  oil  (which  has  a  pale  straw 
color)  makes  a  combination  of  color  that  is  not  pleasing  to  the  sight. 
It  is  not  a  clear  white,  like  butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  then,  I  understand  from  what  has  been 
said  by  the  present  speaker  that  the  manufacturers,  without  adding  any 
artificial  coloring  matter,  but  by  selecting  the  materials  properly,  can 
produce  oleomargarine  without  that  objectionable  color. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  have  been  told  that  they  could. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Who  is  your  manufacturer? 

Mr.  PERSON.  Well,  I  do  not  know  that  I  should  answer  that  question 
here,  Senator.  You  are  opening  up  a  field  that  I  am  not  prepared  to 
go  into. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  want  to  know  is  how  the  product 
finds  its  way  into  the  open  market  in  the  32  States  where  it  has  been 
prohibited  by  law. 

Mr.  PERSON.  I  think  that  question  has  been  met  by  the  answer  given 
you  some  time  ago — that  if  the  laws  are  not  in  consonance  with  public 
thought  and  feeling,  and  are  not  indorsed  by  the  public,  they  will  not 
be  sustained. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  you,  as  a  merchant,  do  not  stop  to 
inquire  whether  the  laws  of  New  Jersey  are  in  consonance  with  public 
thought  and  feeling  before  you  proceed  to  violate  them,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Chairman,  you  will  have  him  incriminating  himself 
presently. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  simply  interested  to  know  about  this 
matter. 

Mr.  PERSON.  Your  remarks  are  rather  leading,  Senator. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  want  to  make  my  remarks  offensive 
at  all.  I  find  here,  however,  these  statutes  preventing  this  thing,  and 
yet  you  are  a  good  merchant,  proceeding  to  do  a  good  business  in  the 
State  of  New  Jersey. 

Mr.  PERSON.  We  have  the  courage  of  our  convictions. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Chairman,  allow  me  to  say  that  Mr.  Person  is  a 
wholesale  dealer.  He  sells  goods  in  the  original  packages  only.  Is 
that  not  so? 

Mr.  PERSON.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  have  had  a  number  of  opinions  from  the  Supreme 
Court,  giving  us  the  privilege  of  selling  original  packages,  unbroken 
packages,  manufactured  in  other  States. 

Mr.  PERSON.  I  have  referred  to  the  fact  that  we  were  handling 
original  packages  there,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  MILLER.  There  is  a  decision  in  Minnesota  and  one  in  New  Hani- 
shire  to  that  eifect. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  supreme  court  of  New  Jersey  seems 
to  have  decided  that  that  law  is  constitutional,  even  as  applying  to 
interstate  commerce— that  is  to  say,  to  articles  shipped  in  from  the 
other  States  and  sold  in  the  original  packages. 

Mr.  PERSON.  That  law  has  been  upset  by  a  more  recent  decision  of 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  Senator. 


342  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Why,  Mr.  Chairman,  on  the  color  question  I  agree  with 
your  view.  I  never  saw  butter  that  looked  exactly  like  that  particular 
combination.  But  is  the  ordinary  butter  what  might  strictly  be  termed 
yellow,  after  all?  Is  it  not  more  of  a  golden  color?  Of  course  it  is  a 
shade  of  yellow,  but  it  is  not — 

Mr.  PERSON.  I  have  not  spoken  of  these  as  colors.  I  have  spoken 
of  them  as  shades. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  You  can  find  butter  here  in  the  Center  Market 
that  has  a  tint  approaching  that  third  deepest  color — that  is,  that  would 
be  the  color,  but  it  is  reddish.  It  is  a  reddish  yellow,  just  the  same. 
It  is  the  Elgin  butter,  I  believe. 

Mr.  KNIGKET.  Senator,  I  want  to  say  that  in  the  butter  trade  we 
have  made  a  great  many  efforts  to  reproduce  the  color  of  butter  in 
some  way  so  that  a  standard  could  be  printed,  and  we  find  it  impos- 
sible to  print  anything  that  looks  like  the  real  butter  color.  The  color 
of  butter  is  on  a  grease,  and  it  appears  that  no  printing  ink,  on  paper 
or  anything  of  that  kind,  will  look  like  the  actual  butter  color.  We 
have  tried  that  and  we  have  failed. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Then  there  are  so  many  shades  of  color,  even  in 
June  and  July;  and  different  grasses  make  different  colors.  Take  our 
Western  country,  for  instance.  The  blue  grass  gives  color  different 
from  that  of  butter  from  alfalfa.  The  color  of  butter  from  alfalfa,  again, 
is  different  from  that  of  rye.  In  fact,  the  color  of  butter  from  rye  is  so 
deep  that  it  is  rather  objectionable. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  are  something  of  a  butter  man,  Senator,  I  see. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Well,  I  have  been  in  the  dairy  business  all  my 
life;  and  I  know  all  about  it  so  far  as  the  farm  goes.  We  have  even 
wrapped  it  in  all  sorts  of  cloths  when  we  could  not  get  the  butter  cloth. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  is  there  anyone  else  desiring  to  be 
heard  this  afternoon  ? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Allow  me  to  say  further  on  the  color  matter  that  my 
chemist  advises  me  that  there  are  over  700  different  kinds  of  named 
colors  as  a  result  of  the  coal-tar  product,  and  that  there  are  thousands 
of  other  colors  and  shades  which  have  not  been  named.  The  color 
question,  then,  is  one  without  limit,  and  if  they  will  not  define  their 
butter  color,  how  are  we  to  know  what  it  is?  They  say  we  are  not  to 
color  oleomargarine  in  imitation  of  butter.  How  can  we  tell  what  the 
color  is  that  we  are  not  to  imitate?  There  should  be  some  standard. 
They  say,  "You  are  using  our  color," -but  they  do  not  give  us  any 
standard. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yellow  is  the  standard. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  What  yellow  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Any  shade  of  yellow. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Then  white  is  another  shade  of  butter.  We  can  not 
color  our  oleomargarine  white,  or  we  will  be  accused  of  imitating  butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  we  say  yellow  butter. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  What  shade  of  yellow? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Any  shade. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Any  shade?  There  are  over  700  different  shades  of 
yellow,  and  we  can  not  have  any,  but  you  are  entitled  to  all? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  say  one  word  on  the  subject  of 
color,  I  will  say  that  I  have  been  told  the  production  of  a  color  for  use 
in  silks  and  other  dress  goods  means  a  fortune  to  a  chemist,  and  that 
some  of  them  spent  their  lives,  in  Germany  and  France,  studying  to 


OLEOMARGARINE.  343 

produce  a  new  and  attractive  shade.  Very  often  we  see  the  ladies 
adopt  a  certain  new  shade  that  comes  out.  If  the  color  is  attractive 
and  new  and  pleases  the  eye,  such  a  demand  is  immediately  created 
for  it  that  its  producer  becomes  rich. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Jelke,  may  I  ask  a  question  at  this  point  ?  Do  you 
know  whether  there  is  any  one  color  of  silk  to  which  the  consumer  is 
so  attracted  that  he  refuses  any  other  color? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Well,  yes.  They  will  not  take  a  color  of  silk,  Mr. 
Knight,  that  is  displeasing  to  their  sight  if  they  can  get  what  they 
want. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  The  question  which  the  chairman  asked  has  not, 
to  my  mind,  been  satisfactorily  answered.  Perhaps  it  can  not  be;  but 
I  think  I  can  assist  in  answering  it  to  some  degree.  That  question  was 
as  to  how  colored  oleomargarine  can  be  sold  in  those  States  which  have 
the  anticolor  law  without  a  violation  of  the  statutes  of  those  States. 

For  instance,  Rhode  Island  borders  on  Massachusetts.  The  factories 
in  Rhode  Island  take  their  orders  from  the  consumers  in  Massachusetts 
in  such  a  way  that  the  sale  takes  place  in  Ehode  Island,  where  it  is 
perfectly  lawful.  In  that  way  the  goods  enter  Massachusetts  in  a  way 
which  is  not  in  violation  or  even  in  evasion  of  the  Massachusetts 
statutes. 

The  AciiNG  CHAIRMAN.  How  does  the  Massachusetts  merchant 
handle  the  situation  after  he  gets  over  there? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  do  not  say  that  the  Massachusetts  dealer  can 
sell  his  product  to  his  consumers  without  a  violation  of  the  law,  sir. 
What  I  mean  is  we  sell  them  directly  to  the  consumer.  Of  course,  to 
carry  that  argument  out,  if  a  person  in  Massachusetts  came  over  the 
line  of  Rhode  Island,  bought  a  package  of  oleomargarine,  and  took  it 
home,  that  would  be  no  violation  of  the  law  of  Massachusetts;  and  that 
is  precisely  the  theory  upon  which  the  whole  business  is  conducted,  in 
so  far  as  it  applies  to  those  places  which  are  near  enough  to  Rhode 
Island  to  supply  the  Massachusetts  customers.  In  other  words,  in 
Massachusetts  the  sale  takes  place  in  the  State  where  it  is  lawful  that 
it  should  take  place,  and  there  is  no  violation  or  even  evasion  of  the 
statutes. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  just  exactly  what  we  are  after. 

STATEMENT  OF  J.  J.  CULBERTSON,  OF  DALLAS,  TEX. 

Mr.  CULBERTSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  as  secretary  and  treasurer  of  the 
Continental  Cotton  Oil  Company  of  New  York,  and  also  as  represent- 
ing a  number  of  cotton  mills  in  the  Southern  States,  I  want  to  bring 
before  you  some  facts  on  this  question  that  are  intimately  associated 
with  our  industry. 

We  are  what  might  be  termed  an  infant  industry,  in  our  swaddling 
clothes,  perhaps.  We  have  had  some  pins  sticking  in  us  years  since, 
and  they  are  pricking  us  now.  We  do  not  ask  for  protection;  but  we 
do  ask  to  be  let  alone. 

The  cotton -seed  oil  industry  is  a  comparatively  new  one.  Thirty 
years  since  it  was  practically  unknown.  We  have  to-day  some  four 
hundred  mills  throughout  the  South;  and  in  the  State  from  which  I 
come  we  have  some  112  or  120,  including  the  Territories. 

The  development  of  the  industry,  I  think,  has  shown  more  progress 
than  anything  in  the  industrial  line  in  the  South,  and  has  become  one 
of  its  leading  industries.  The  products  that  are  made  are  practically 
new  to  the  manufacturing  and  commercial  world,  and  they  naturally 


844  OLEOMAKGA&INE. 

displace  articles  of  kindred  nature  in  the  various  channels  into  which 
they  have  gone. 

The  chief  channels  in  which  the  oil  has  been  consumed  have  been 
developed  since  the  recent  large  development  of  the  industry.  The 
consumption  of  cotton-seed  oil  is  very  large  as  an  admixture  of  lard 
for  use  as  a  cooking  oil  and  as  a  component  part  in  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine  or  butter  substitute.  We  naturally  have  to  find  new 
outlets  to  keep  pace  with  our  increased  production,  and  while  the  busi- 
ness has  grown  considerably  in  this  country  it  has  increased  to  a  greater 
extent  abroad.  The  uses  to  which  it  is  put  there  are  chiefly  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  higher-priced  oils,  and  for  the  manufacture  of  what  is  termed 
there  "rnargarin,"  which  is  identical  with  the  oleomargarine  or  butterine 
of  this  country. 

We  want  to  protest  against  anything  that  interferes  with  the  use  of 
our  product  where  it  is  legitimately  employed  on  the  same  ground  that 
we  think  the  paper  which  is  made  from  the  wood  of  the  forest  to-day 
is  entitled  to  as  great  a  position  in  the  commercial  world  as  the  paper 
made  from  rags  by  our  forefathers.  We  consider  that  we  are  in  the 
same  line  of  advancement  and  development  as  other  industries  of  a 
progressive  country,  and  I  want  to  say  that  the  trend  of  those  in  the 
manufacturing  business  generally — in  the  commercial  world  and  in  the 
arts — has  been  toward  improvement  in  whatever  line  they  are  follow- 
ing. In  our  particular  line  our  aim  has  been  to  produce  from  an  article 
that  has  been  wasted  in  past  years  something  that  is  good  and  whole- 
some as  an  article  of  human  diet.  We  think  we  have  succeeded. 

Cotton  is  grown,  not  for  the  seed,  but  for  the  lint  it  produces.  The 
progress  in  the  development  of  its  culture  once  made  the  South  rich. 
JSince  the  civil  war  the  growth  has  increased  until,  at  this  time,  the 
whole  world  relies  on  that  part  of  the  country  for  its  main  supply  of 
cotton.  The  seed  is  a  by-product,  and  a  bulky  one;  and  it  was  formerly 
a  burden  to  the  planter.  It  was  burned  or  dumped  into  the  river  to 
get  rid  of  it;  and  frequently  the  gins  were  compelled  to  move  to  get 
out  of  the  way  of  the  accumulation  of  seed. 

Some  ingenious  mind  discovered  that  cotton  seed  contained  oil;  and 
he  who  first  made  oil  from  cotton  seed  became,  to  my  mind,  a  bene- 
factor of  the  race.  Cotton-seed  oil  plants  were  Jbuilt  for  the  production 
of  this  vegetable  oil,  which  was  found  to  be  pure  and  wholesome,  and 
as  an  article  of  human  diet,  in  the  various  trades  and  manufactures  in 
which  it  entered  into  consumption,  it  at  once  found  favor.  It  is  used 
in  itself  as  a  cooking  fat.  The  prejudice  that  formerly  existed  against 
cotton  seed  or  any  of  its  products  has  so  far  prevented  it  from  coming 
forward  for  what  it  is — a  pure  and  wholesome  article  of  human  diet.  It 
is  used  largely  as  an  admixture  to  olive  oil.  The  various  grades  of 
olive  oil  produced  in  the  south  of  Europe  require  the  use  of  an  article 
of  this  character  to  mild  and  blend  them  down.  The  people  themselves 
use  it.  And  while  in  Italy  (as  Mr.  Tompkins  noted  this  morning)  a 
practically  prohibitory  duty  was  imposed  on  the  article,  the  exporta- 
tion of  olive  oil  to  other  countries  from  that  country  has  in  no  wise 
decreased  its  consumption  for  that  particular  purpose;  and  I  think  the 
time  will  come  when  we  shall  have  cotton  oil  put  up  as  a  pure  vege- 
table oil,  on  an  equality  with  olive  oil.  Its  character  is  about  the 
same,  so  far  as  its  organization  is  concerned.  It  is  a  matter  purely  of 
an  acquired  taste — purely.  An  article  of  high  grade,  refined  cotton 
oil  is  as  good  for  human  diet  as  is  olive  oil,  the  latter  being  used  in  the 
south  of  Europe  very  extensively  as  an  article  of  diet,  and  largely  as  a 
cooking  oil. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  345 

This  product,  as  I  have  said,  also  enters  into  and  is  part  of  the  com- 
position of  oleomargarine,  or  butterine;  and  I  want  to  say  that  the  man 
who  tirst  produced  oleomargarine  was,  in  my  opinion,  a  benefactor  to 
the  race.  The  ingredient  of  cotton  oil  that  enters  largely  into  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  butterine,  or  butter  substitute,  as  is 
shown,  is  a  pure  and  wholesome  vegetable  oil,  free  from  any  possibility 
of  disease.  The  people  of  other  countries  have  gone  into  this  subject 
more  fully  than  our  own. 

In  Great  Britain  I  think  the  question  of  pure  food  has  been  given 
more  attention  than  perhaps  in  any  civilized  nation  in  the  world;  and 
anything  that  is  pure  and  good  and  wholesome  and  healthful  for  human 
diet  is  welcomed  there  by  the  people  ot  the  country — anything  in  the 
food  product  line  which  will  lessen  the  cost  of  living  to  the  mass  of 
people.  The  colonies  of  Great  Britain  have  been  very  large  producers 
of  butter,  notably  Australia  and  New  Zealand.  I  think  they  have 
subsidized  boats  with  refrigerating  apparatus  in  order  to  bring  that 
product  to  Great  Britain  for  the  purpose  of  lessening  the  cost  of  that 
food  to  its  working  people. 

The  butter  countries  of  the  Continent,  especially  Holland,  produce 
more  "  margarine,"  as  they  call  it,  than  they  used  to  produce  of  butter. 
The  organization  of  that  product  or  article  is  about  the  same  as  that 
produced  in  this  country.  That  produced  in  those  countries  is  exported 
and  sold  in  all  the  large  manufacturing  towns  of  Great  Britain  by  the 
side  of  butter.  If  they  are  able  to  frame  a  law  which  will  protect  the 
butter  manufacturer  there,  why  can  not  we1?  If  there  is  anything 
deleterious  in  it,  the  scientific  men  of  that  country  would  certainly  find 
it  out.  I  think  they  have  not  more  stringent  laws  than  we  have, 
although  they  have  given  more  attention  to  the  subject;  and  the  prod- 
uct is  sold  openly  for  what  it  is,  of  course — margarine.  And  by  its 
means  the  mass  of  people  are  able  to  obtain  a  food  product  that  is  at 
once  as  healthful  and  good  and  wholesome  as  butter  itself. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  claim  which  has  been  made  here  that  a  law 
can  riot  be  framed  which  will  protect  the  interests  of  the  butter  maker 
and  of  the  maker  of  the  butter  substitute  can  not  be  well  founded.  I 
do  not  think  that  in  any  country  of  the  world  is  the  Government  as 
zealous  of  the  health  of  its  people  as  that  of  Great  Britain.  In  the 
shops  in  all  the  manufacturing  towns  and  the  other  large  towns  of  that 
country  where  butter  and  kindred  products  are  sold  there  are  dis- 
played side  by  side  for  sale  butter  and  what  they  there  term  u  mar- 
garine." In  the  countries  in  which  it  is  manufactured  it  is  used  in  the 
same  way.  Its  manufacture  has  become  a  great  industry;  and  that 
industry  is  being  developed  and  fostered.  When  I  was  in  Rotterdam 
last  spring  I  visited  a  very  large  "  rnargarin-fabrick,"  as  it  is  called, 
and  the  proprietor  took  especial  pains  to  show  me  a  tablet  in  marble 
that  had  just  been  placed  there  in  commemoration  of  a  visit  of  Queen 
Wilhelmina,  of  Holland,  showing  that  it  has  the  approval  not  only  of 
the  mass  of  the  people,  but  of  the  Government.  Its  manufacturer 
contributes  very  largely  to  the  work  of  the  people  there,  and  the 
export  business  is  a  great  source  of  income. 

We  want  to  protest  against  the  passage  of  such  a  bill  as  is  before 
your  committee  as  being  hurtful  to  our  interests  at  large,  and  espe- 
cially hurtful  to  those  mills  in  which  I  and  my  friends  are  directly 
interested.  They  are  located  in  Texas,  where  there  is  produced  a 
quality  of  oil  that  averages  better  than  that  made  in  the  other  Southern 
States.  And  while  in  the  aggregate  the  total  production  of  oil  used  in 
this  particular  line  may  seem  small,  to  us  it  is  very  large. 


346  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  Bond  stated  that  in  his  opinion,  if  I  am  correct,  about  40,000 
barrels  of  cotton  oil  were  used  in  the  West  in  the  manufacture  of  oleo- 
margarine, or  butter  substitute.  I  do  not  think  that  nearly  covers  it. 
In  fact,  the  mills  in  which  I  am  directly  interested  would,  if  that  is 
correct,  have  supplied  25  per  cent  of  that  quantity. 

The  total  production  of  oil  of  all  grades,  I  think,  equals  from 
1,500,000  to  2,000,000  barrels  per  year.  Of  that  quantity  I  think  there 
are  consumed  in  this  country,  for  oleomargarine  purposes,  from  125,000 
to  150,000  barrels.  There  are  exported  for  the  same  purpose  about 
300,000  barrels,  showing  that  the  total  quantity  used  in  that  particu- 
lar line  is  equal  to  at  least  25  per  cent  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  the  gentleman  pardon  a  moment's  interrup- 
tion f 

Mr.  CULBERTSON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  you  explain  to  the  committee  how  you  get 
the  better  butter  oils  and  the  lesser  grades  of  cotton  oil? 

Mr.  OULBERTSON.  All  right;  I  will  touch  on  that  in  a  minute. 

The  exportation  of  this  large  quantity  of  oil  has  been  brought  about 
by  hard  work  on  our  part,  by  the  development  of  other  businesses,  par- 
ticularly in  the  oleomargarine  line.  And  if  you  gentlemen  frame  a  law 
that  is  practically  prohibitory  of  an  article  that  has  the  Government 
stamp  of  approval  on  it  in  the  shape  of  the  2-cent  tax,  how  can  you 
"expect  us  to  maintain  our  export  trade1? 

The  exportation  of  cotton  oil  for  that  particular  purpose  forms  a 
small  part  of  our  exports.  What  is  to  become  of  the  trade  in  oleo  oil 
or  in  neutral  lard?  The  countries  that  make  this  product  rely  on  this 
country  for  its  ingredients.  What  is  to  become  of  that  business,  that 
has  taken  years  for  us  to  work  up,  if  you  gentlemen  pass  a  prohibi- 
tory, unjust,  and  vicious  tax  on  something  that  has  been  approved  by 
this  Government?  I  think  there  ought  to  be  some  consistency  in 
things  of  that  character.  We  have  at  times  been  importuned  to  join 
export  associations  for  the  development  of  export  trade,  on  the  ground 
that  our  export  business  would  be  increased  and  that  our  business 
would  be  enlarged  It  seems  to  me  they  could  turn  their  attention  to 
the  development  and  maintenance  of  their  domestic  trade.  It  seems  to 
me  that  legislative  bodies  like  yours  should  not  be  called  upon  to  protect 
internally  one  interest  as  against  another. 

We  hear  of  oleomargarine.  What  is  oleomargarine?  When  the 
stamp  of  approval  of  the  Government  was  put  on  it  it  was  an  article 
that  was  sold  for  what  it  was  or  supposed  to  have  been.  You  want  to 
take  out  now  one  ingredient,  that  of  the  butter  color,  an  article  that 
has  been  produced  and  manufactured  since  butter  was  made.  Have 
they  a  patent  right  to  that  particular  thing  for  their  particular  mixture? 
The  butter  color,  as  I  understand,  was  originally  made,  and  the  vehicle 
by  which  it  was  carried  was  olive  oil.  They  found  they  could  lessen 
the  cost  of  the  production  of  that  article  by  using  cotton-seed  oil,  so 
that,  as  Mr.  Tompkins  has  stated  this  morning,  every  pound  of  butter — 
June  butter,  if  you  may  so  call  it,  made  in  December — has  cotton  oil  in 
it,  where  it  is  colored.  1  do  not  see  why  the  butter  people  should 
claim  a  patent  right  to  that  particular  ingredient.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  butter-color  manufacturers  would  cry  out  against  such  a  procedure. 
You  might  just  as  well  compel  by  law  the  elimination  of  any  other 
principal  ingredient  in  oleomargarine  or  butterine,  or  butter  substitute, 
whatever  you  may  call  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  it  disturb  you  if  I  should  ask  a 
question  on  that  point? 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


347 


Mr.  CULBERSON.  No,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  lias  been  stated  here  that  the  butter 
color  could  be  produced  without  the  addition  of  coloring  matter,  by 
taking  advantage  of  certain  grades  and  states  of  the  cotton-seed  oil 
and  other  materials.  What  grade  of  cotton-seed  oil  is  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  What  is  known  as  butter  oil. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Refined  oil? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Refined  oil. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  color  of  it? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  The  color  of  it  is  straw  or  light  yellow. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  would  the  use  of  that  proportion  thai 
enters  into  oleomargarine  give  that  color  to  the  product? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  The  light-yellow  color? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMA.N.  Yes. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  No. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  any  possible  mixture  of  the  oil  and 
other  materials,  in  the  absence  of  other  distinct  coloring  matter,  that 
would  produce  the  butter  color? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  on  that  subject  allow  me  to  suggest 
that  one  of  rny  clients  is  the  oldest  man  in  the  oleomargarine  business 
in  this  country,  and  he  bas  experimented  all  his  life  with  the  idea  of 
avoiding  the  use  of  any  artificial  color:  and,  so  far,  his  efforts  have 
been  unsuccessful. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  He  ought  to  consult  with  this  firm  that 
furnishes  it  for  New  Jersey.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  The  gentleman  will  pardon  me  a  moment;  but 
the  use  of  your  cotton- seed  oil  does  give  to  the  oleomargarine  a  slight 
color. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Perhaps  so,  but  not  sufficient  color  to  bring  it  to 
the  color  that  the  Government  approved  at  the  time  they  taxed  it. 

I  would  like  to  know  what  the  butter  makers  of  the  country  colored 
their  butter  with  before  this  butter  color  was  manufactured?  Our 
grandmothers,  I  take  it,  used  carrots.  If  this  is  an  improved  method, 
why  should  it  be  confined  to  butter  itself?  Why  should  any  legislative 
body  give  to  any  manufacturing  enterprise  a  patent  right  to  use  that 
exclusively?  I  can  not  see  it.  Oleomargarine  or  butterine  has  always 
been  made  with  a  certain  amount  of  color — butter  color,  if  you  will.  I 
think  the  manufacturer  of  that  color  considers  it  just  as  much  an  oleo- 
margarine color  as  a  butter  color,  because  it  is  used  for  such,  and  why 
it  should  be  restricted  to  one  branch  of  trade  to  the  exclusion  of  every- 
thing else  I  can  not  see. 

What  shall  wo  say  of  this  free  and  liberty-loving  country  and  people 
drafting  measures  practically  forbidding  the  manufacture  of  an  article 
because  it  comes  in  competition  with  an  article — with  butter — and  con- 
demning it  because  it  is  used  as  a  substitute  for  butter,  and  thus  rob- 
bing the  mass  of  poor  people  of  a  substitute  that  is  at  once  pure  and 
wholesome  and  good,  and  has  been  so  proved. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  As  you  are  from  Texas  (I  do  not  remember 
whether  we  have  anyone  else  from  that  State  or  not),  cairyou  tell  me 
how  oleomargarine  is  placed  on  the  market  there,  and  whether  you 
have  any  opinion  as  to  how  much  of  it  is  sold  for  butter,  if  any? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  In  Texas? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  In  Texas. 


348  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  I  must  confess  that  I  am  not  fully  posted  on  that 
matter.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  law  governing  its  manufacture  or 
sale. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  none. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  There  was  an  attempt  made  a  year  or  two  ago  to 
frame  a  law,  which  was  defeated.  An  attempt  was  made  to  follow  some 
of  the  laws  of  the  North  and  East  in  that  respect,  but  the  venture  did 
not  go  through. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  hear  any  complaints  about  it  being  sold 
for  butter  in  your  State? — A.  No.  I  think  I  have  mentioned  in  regard 
to  a  certain  percentage  of  the  total  quantity  of  oil  produced  as  being 
used  for  butterine  or  oleomargarine  purposes.  At  some  of  the  mills 
in  which  I  am  directly  interested  one-half  of  the  production  of  those 
particular  mills  is  sold  either  in  this  country  to  butterine  manufacturers 
or  is  exported  for  that  same  purpose,  so  that  the  passage  of  this  bill 
would  hurt  us  very  materially. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Will  you  pardon  a  question1? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Are  you  a  refiner  of  cotton-seed  oil? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  We  have  refineries  at  our  plants;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  use  any  chemicals  in  refining  cotton-seed  oil? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  There  is  no  other  way  to  refine  it  other  than  by 
chemicals. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  chemical  is  used  ? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Various. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  the  principal  one? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  The  same  chemicals  that  have  been  used  ever  since 
cotton-seed  oil  was  refined. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  am  not  a  cotton-oil  man,  so  I  do  not  know  what  those 
are,  and  1  do  not  think  the  committee  does. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  We  use  caustic  soda  in  diluted  form.  We  further- 
more have  our  own  processes  by  which  when  the  oil  is  finished  it  is 
perfectly  neutral.  There  is  absolutely  no  sign  of  chemical  or  of  color- 
ing matter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  can  refine  cotton-seed  oil  and  make  it  absolutely 
white — make  what  they  call  a  winter  oil? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Yes;  that  can  be  done. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  think  it  is  possible  that  any  of  that  caustic  soda 
will  be  left  in  the  oil  after  the  refining? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  It  is  possible,  but  not  for  butter  oil  purposes. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Then  in  all  of  the  oleomargarine  that  we  eat  we  eat  an 
oil  that  has  been  through  a  process  of  refinement  by  caustic  soda  or  with 
caustic  soda? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Not  necessarily. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  some  other  chemical  equally  strong. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Not  necessarily.  There  are  other  processes.  I  tell 
you  what  we  use. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  others  to  be  heard  this  afternoon  ? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  was  expected  that  Mr.  Tompkins,  who 
spoke  this  morning,  would  continue  this  afternoon,  and  there  has  been 
no  provision  made  for  a  further  speaker.  Mr.  Tompkins  was  called 
away  to  Richmond  at  half  past  3. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  on  behalf  of  the  committee,  thanking 
those  who  have  spoken  for  their  attendance  upon  the  committee,  we 
will  stand  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning  at  half  past  10  o'clock. 

The  committee,  at  4.32  p.  m.,  adjourned  until  Wednesday  morning, 
January  9,  1901,  at  10.30. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  349 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Wednesday,  January  9,  1901. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Proctor  ( chairman ),  Foster,  Money,  and  Allen. 
Also  Charles  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Union;  Frank 
W.  Tillinghast,  representing  the  Vermont  Manufacturing  Company,  of 
Providence,  R.  I. ;  Charles  E.  Schell,  representing  the  Ohio  Butterine 
Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  John  F.  Jelke,  representing  Braun  & 
Fitts,  Chicago,  111.;  J.  J.  Culbertson,  representing  the  Continental 
Cotton-Oil  Company,  of  New  York  City;  Henry  E.  Davis,  representing 
the  National  Butterine  Company,  of  Washington,  D.  C.;  John  F. 
McNainee,  representing  the  Columbus  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly, 
Columbus,  Ohio,  and  others. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  May  it  please  the  committee,  it  has  been  my  wish,  in 
behalf  of  the  oleomargarine  industry,  to  appear  before  you ;  and  I  have 
several  times  endeavored  to  make  an  arrangement  for  a  brief  part  of 
your  time  that  would  be  consistent  with  the  convenience  of  the  committee 
and  of  the  gentlemen  who  are  here  from  other  cities. 

I  learned  from  the  newspaper  this  morning  that  it  is  the  purpose  of 
the  committee  to  close  this  hearing  finally  to-morrow.  That  being  so, 
I  would,  still  yielding  to  the  convenience  of  those  who  are  from  other 
cities,  ask  the  committee  to  do  me  the  favor  to  specify  some  hour  at 
which  I  can  take  a  little  of  your  time.  My  special  justification  for  this 
request  is  the  fact  that,  although  oleomargarine  is  not  manufactured  in 
any  Territory  of  the  United  States,  a  large  establishment  is  under 
process  of  construction  here  which  will  involve  an  outlay  of  several 
hundred  thousand  dollars.  It  is  manifest  to  the  committee,  without 
argument,  that  that  industry  is  peculiarly  within  the  reach  of  Con- 
gressional legislation,  which  makes  it  proper,  it  seems  to  me,  that  some 
suggestions  on  this  subject  which  have  occurred  to  my  mind  should  be 
laid  before  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  no  objection  on  the  part  of  the  committee 
to  your  going  on  to  day  at  any  time. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  want  to  accommodate  myself  to  the  convenience  of 
these  other  gentlemen,  and  I  am  at  the  command  of  the  committee  so 
far  as  the  time  is  concerned. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Mr.  Chairman,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  can  sit 
here  all  afternoon. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Knight  this  morning,  and  he  has  some 
gentlemen  here  from  outside  of  the  city  who  would  like  to  be  heard 
this  afternoon. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  is  there  here  who  wants  to  be  heard  this 
morning  in  behalf  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  JELKE.  There  is  Mr.  McNamee,  of  Ohio,  and  Mr.  Peters,  of 
Texas. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Why  can  not  Mr.  Davis  go  on  now? 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  Mr.  Davis  thinks  he  will  have  time,  I  can  see  no 
objection  to  that;  but  these  gentlemen  are  from  outside  of  the  city, 
while  Mr.  Davis  lives  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  true;  but  he  says  he  will  not  require  a  great 
deal  of  time. 

Senator  FOSTER.  How  much  time  will  you  require,  Mr.  Davis? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  shall  be  very  brief.  1  can  save  time,  however,  if  the 
committee  will  give  me  a  later  hour,  for  the  reason  that  in  conversation 
with  Judge  Springer 

Senator  FOSTER.  Then  how  would  it  do  for  you  to  come  in  at  half 
past  2? 


350  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  JBLKE.  I  believe  if  Mr.  Knight's  friends  are  heard  this  morning 
and  Mr.  Davis  comes  on  in  the  afternoon  Mr.  Knight  will  be  satisfied. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  would  rather  have  the  dairy  interest  heard  from 
to-morrow  as  far  as  possible  and  the  oleomargarine  interest  to-day. 

Mr.  JELKE.  These  gentlemen  are  from  outside  of  the  city,  if  you 
please. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  try  to  accommodate  them,  but  the  oleomar- 
garine interest  has  the  right  of  way  to  day. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Senator,  as  to  the  matter  broached  by  Mr.  Jelke,  we 
will  not  want  over  ten  minutes'  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right ;  you  can  have  that.  Let  Mr.  Davis  come 
in  at  half  past  2. 

STATEMENT  OF  JOHN  F.  McNAMEE,  VICE-PRESIDENT  AND  CHAIR- 
MAN LEGISLATIVE  COMMITTEE  COLUMBUS  TRADES  AND  LABOR 
ASSEMBLY,  COLUMBUS,  OHIO. 

Mr.  McKAMEE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  Senators,  it  has  not  often  been 
my  privilege  in  the  capacity  I  occupy  to  appear  before  a  committee 
representative  of  so  dignified  a  body  as  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States.  I  am  not  a  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine,  nor,  in  fact,  a  manu- 
facturer of  anything.  I  bear  from  the  Central  Labor  Union  of  the  city 
of  Columbus,  Ohio,  officially  known  as  the  Columbus  Trades  and 
Labor  Assembly,  credentials  which,  with  your  permission,  I  will  read 
to  you : 

COLUMBUS,  OHIO,  January  5,  1901. 
To  whom  it  may  concern: 

This  is  to  certify  that  the  bearer,  Mr.  John  F.  McNamee,  vice-president  of  the 
Columbus  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  is  authorized  and  empowered  by  said  body 
to  exert  every  effort  and  use  all  honorable  means  in  accomplishing  the  defeat  of  a 
measure  now  pending  in  the  United  States  Senate,  and  known  as  the  Grout  bill,  the 
object  of  which  is  to  destroy  a  legitimate  industry  in  the  interest  of  its  competitors, 
said  Grout  bill  being  regarded  by  said  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly  and  all  it  repre- 
sents as  a  gross  injustice,  class  legislation,  an  invasion  of  citizenship  rights,  and  a 
serious  menace  to  the  best  interests  of  all  citizens,  particularly  those  in  moderate 
circumstances. 

Any  courtesies  extended  to  our  representative,  Mr.  McNamee,  will  be  fully  appre- 
ciated and  remembered  by  the  Columbus  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly. 

[SEAL.]  FRANK  B.  CAMERON,  President. 

WILLIAM  F.  HATJCK,  Secretary. 

Senator  MONEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  to  go  to  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations.  A  bill  is  under  consideration  there  in  which  I  am 
very  much  interested — the  reciprocity  treaty.  Mr.  Bate  and  Mr. 
Warren  told  me  that  they  had  to  attend  the  session  of  the  Military 
Affairs  Committee.  At  any  rate,  they  are  not  here;  I  thought  they 
would  be  here.  Mr.  Heitfeld  told  me  he  had  to  attend  the  meeting  of 
the  Committee  on  Patents,  where  a  bill  involving  filtered  water  for  the 
District,  I  believe — I  do  not  know  just  what  it  is— is  to  come  up.  I  hope 
there  will  be  no  vote  taken  in  the  committee  about  the  final  hearing  or 
closing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  do  not  expect  to  take  any. 

Senator  MONEY.  All  right. 

Mr.  MoKAMEE.  Gentlemen,  if  the  labor  organizations  of  the  United 
States  were  possessed  of  sufficient  capital  to  enable  each  one  of  them 
to  send  a  representative  here  to  convey  to  you  their  sentiments  regard- 
ing this  Grout  bill,  I  assure  you  that  you  could  not  possibly  conclude 
this  hearing  before  the  next  Presidential  election.  This  letter  of  intro- 


OLEOMARGARINE.  351 

duction  which  I  have  presented  represents  but  faintly  the  bitter 
antagonism  which  prevails  in  the  ranks  of  organized  labor  to  said 
measure. 

When  any  class  of  men  are  organized,  matters  bearing  upon  their 
interests  generally  receive  full  and  exhaustive  discussion  in  the  organi- 
zation representing  that  particular  class.  And  so  it  is  with  the  Grout 
bill.  In  nearly  every  labor  organization  in  our  country  it  has  been 
np  for  discussion;  and  I  myself  have  heard  iron  molders,  blacksmiths, 
electrical  workers,  and  members  of  almost  every  craft  discuss  the  mat- 
ter, making  such  familiar  use  of  technical  chemical  phrases  as  to  im- 
press one  who  did  not  know  what  their  occupation  really  was  with  a 
belief  that  they  were  either  chemists  or  deep  amateur  students  of  that 
profession  or  art. 

The  members  of  organized  labor  are  thoroughly  familiar  with  all  of 
the  phases  of  this  bill.  They  speak  about  the  chemical  analyses  which 
have  been  made  of  oleomargarine  by  official  chemists,  and  they  discuss 
all  of  the  various  components  and  ingredients  of  the  product  with  almost 
as  much  familiarity  as  the  manufacturers  themselves  are  capable  of 
doing.  So  I  say  that  they  are  wide  awake  to  the  necessity,  in  the  pro- 
tection of  their  own  interests,  of  having  the  bill  defeated.  Not  only 
that;  but  as  patriotic  American  citizens  they  feel  deeply  the  indignity 
to  which  our  legislative  bodies  have  been  subjected  by  this  attempt  to 
utilize  them  for  the  promotion  of  the  interests  of  certain  individuals 
and  corporations  in  violation  of  every  sense  of  right  and  justice  and  at 
the  expense  of  the  constitutional  prerogatives  of  other  citizens.  They 
feel  that  the  legislative  bodies  of  some  of  our  States  and  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  have  been  insulted  by  this  attempt  to  utilize  them 
as  tools  for  the  protection  of  certain  interests  which  can  not  sustain 
themselves  against  competitors. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Mr.  McNamee,  would  it  interrupt  you  if  I  should 
ask  you  a  question  or  two  ? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  I  shall  be  very  glad  to  have  you  ask  me  all  the  ques- 
tions you  wish. 

Senator  ALLEN.  How  many  laboring  men  are  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine1? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  How  many  laboring  men,  you  say? 

Senator  ALLEN.  Yes;  how  many  men  are  there  who  earn  their  daily 
living  by  that  industry? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  There  are  thousands  of  laboring  men  who  earn  their 
living  by  manufacturing  oleomargarine. 

Senator  ALLEN.  How  many  thousands  would  you  say,  in  round 
numbers? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  state  exactly  or  even 
approximately  the  number  of  men. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Then  your  contention  is  that  the  man  of  moderate 
means  has  a  right  to  purchase  an  article  which  is  cheaper  than  genuine 
butter,  if  he  desires  to  do  so,  and  use  it? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  My  contention  is  this,  Senator:  That  we  are  desirous 
of  perpetuating  the  employment  of  the  men  who  make  the  butterine, 
although  we  may  not  know  to  within  five  or  six  how  many  men  are  so 
employed.  But  we  are  mainly  desirous  of  perpetuating  the  existence 
of  this  product,  with  which  we  have  had  amply  sufficient  experience  to 
know  that  it  is  healthful,  wholesome,  and  palatable. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Then  the  whole  thing  is  summed  up  in  this  one 
remark — that  the  laboring  people  whom  you  represent  are  desirous  of 


352  OLEOMARGARINE. 

having  the  right  to  purchase  a  product  that  is  cheaper  than  butter  if 
they  desire  to  do  so? 

Mr.  MC/NAMEE.  Not  necessarily  to  purchase  a  product  that  is  cheaper 
than  butter;  no,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Well,  1  should  not  say  "  cheaper,"  but  they  have  a 
right  to  a  choice  between  the  two? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  They  should  have  a  right  to  a  choice  between  the  two. 

Senator  ALLEN.  That  is  your  contention? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  That  is  the  substance  of  it.  Senator;  and,  moreover, 
it  is  a  fact  that  if  the  manufacture  of  butterine  is  prohibited,  the  but- 
ter manufacturers,  whether  they  are  individuals  or  a  combination  of 
individuals  formed  for  the  purpose  of  monopolizing  that  particular 
industry,  will  have  the  opportunity  of  manufacturing  almost  any  sort 
of  product  they  please  that  can  be  used  as  butter  generally  is,  and  of 
charging  for  that  product  any  price  they  please.  We  hold  that  if  the 
manufacture  of  butterine  is  prohibited,  then  men  using  butter  or  using 
a  spread  of  that  kind  for  their  bread  who  desire  to  use  it  will  then,  as 
now,  have  the  choice  of  either  buying  it  or  going  without  it;  and  the 
chances  are  that  the  price  will  be  so  high  that  a  great  many  such  citi- 
zens in  moderate  circumstances  will  be  compelled  to  go  without  it.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  manufacture  of  butterine  is  perpetuated,  it  will 
equalize  the  butter  market. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  competition  will  bring  down  the  prices,  of  course. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  And  it  will  keep  butter  within  the  reach  of  those 
who  do  not  care  to  use  butterine. 

Now,  I  appeared  before  the  committee  on  agriculture  of  the  Ohio 
legislature,  and  after  having  dissected  all  of  the  various  arguments  in 
favor  of  certain  measures  for  the  destruction  of  the  butterine  industry 
(and  I  guess  they  had  five  or  six  of  them  up  there),  there  was  a  farmer 
who  said  to  me : 

Suppose  you  fellows  are  permitted  to  go  ahead  and  have  this  butterine  manufac- 
tured without  limit.  Suppose  there  is  no  restraint  put  upon  its  manufacture,  or  it 
is  not  stopped  in  some  way — what  are  we  going  to  do  with  our  cows0? 

That  expression  of  that  farmer  represents  as  plainly  as  it  is  possible 
for  words  to  express  it  the  one  and  only  object  that  is  sought  in  the 
passage  of  this  Grout  bill,  viz,  the  legislative  destruction  of  a  legiti- 
mate industry  in  the  interest  of  its  competitors,  after  those  competitors 
have  failed,  by  their  inability  to  maintain  their  goods  up  to  a  proper 
standard,  to  themselves  successfully  compete  with  the  product  of  that 
industry,  and  the  desecration  of  our  legislative  bodies  having  such 
glorious  traditions  and  such  sacred  duties  to  perform  in  the  accomplish- 
ment of  such  a  base  purpose. 

Gentlemen,  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  our  citizens  in  mod- 
erate circumstances  who  are  now  looking  to  the  United  States  Senate 
for  protection  against  the  perpetration  of  such  a  gross  injustice.  They 
are  depending  absolutely  upon  that  sense  of  justice,  that  sense^of  honor, 
fair  play,  and  conservatism  which  has  always  characterized  this  body  to 
protect  them  Irom  this,  one  of  the  most  culpable  violations  of  their  rights 
which  any  individual  or  combination  of  individuals  has  ever  attempted 
to  perpetrate  upon  the  American  public.  They  are  looking  to  this  body 
with  the  firm  hope  that  its  traditional  love  of  justice  will  prevail  and  pre- 
dominate in  this  crisis.  Should  this  measure  become  a  law,  arising 
from  the  mists  of  the  near  future  there  will  come  a  monster  into  whose 
insatiable  maw  the  contributions  of  our  citizens  shall  continually  flow, 
and  whose  appetite  shall  be  increased  by  all  attempts  at  its  gratifica- 
tion. This  monster  we  have  all,  in  our  apprehensive  conviction  of  the 
certainty  of  its  existence,  learned  to  regard  as  the  creamery  trust  of 


OLEOMARGARINE.  353 

the  future — the  combination  of  creamery  interests  into  one  great  organi- 
zation, which  shall  monopolize  the  manufacture,  not  only  of  the  food 
product  known  as  butter,  but  of  everything  of  that  nature.  That  octo- 
pus is  now  being  conceived.  If  the  United  States  Senate  should  consent 
to  the  passage  of  a  bill  so  outrageously  unjust  as  this  one  is,  then  its 
birth  will  have  been  accomplished. 

I  am  not  an  attorney  and  have  never  had  the  advantage  of  study- 
ing law.  My  intercourse  with  the  world  has  been  principally  upon 
the  deck  of  a  locomotive.  But  by  virtue  of  that  instinctive  sense 
of  justice,  that  untutored,  instinctive,  layman  common  sense  con- 
stituting the  jury  feature  of  and  recognized  as  being  as  essential 
in  the  maintenance  of  our  common  courts  as  is  the  learned  judge  on 
the  bench — by  that  instinctive  sense  of  right,  I  can  not  but  realize 
that  the  passage  of  this  bill  or  the  establishment  of  a  law  of  this  kind 
is  class  legislation.  I  can  not,  as  a  common,  everyday  citizen,  see  it 
in  any  other  light,  and  I  am  satisfied  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  will  take  the  same  view  of  it  that  my  colleagues  and  I 
have  taken,  and  there  is  no  question  but  that  if  this  bill  becomes  a  law 
it  will  meet  the  same  fate  that  the  income-tax  bill  has  met.  If  the 
income-tax  bill  has  been  declared  to  be  class  legislation  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  I  can  not  see  how  that  court  can  hesitate  to  place  this  in  the 
same  category. 

Not  only  that,  but  a  precedent  will  have  been  established  which 
must  either  be  sustained  or  subject  some  of  our  honorable  Congressmen 
to  submit  to  the  charge  of  inconsistency.  You  will  have  every  corpo- 
ration which  has  a  competitor,  a  small  competitor,  that  it  wants  to 
crush,  coming  here  to  the  United  States  Congress  and  trying  to  get  it  to 
enact  legislation  based  upon  one  pretext  or  another,  none  of  which  can 
be  more  flimsy  than  the  alleged  justification  upon  which  the  passage 
of  the  Grout  bill  is  sought. 

In  contending  for  the  defeat  of  this  measure  I  do  not  make  the  claim 
that  wage  earners  are  all  poverty  stricken — not  at  all.  There  are  many 
wage  earners  who  are  in  very  comfortable  circumstances.  But  even 
they  shall  suffer  by  being  compelled  to  pay  an  enormous  tribute  to  the 
god  of  monopoly  by  virtue  of  the  existence  of  the  institution  of  which 
I  have  spoken,  which  will  be  as  sure  to  arise  upon  the  destruction  of 
this  industry  as  the  sun  will  upon  to-morrow  morning.  The  poorer 
classes  being  compelled  in  such  event  to  go  without  a  material  of  the 
kind  altogether,  they  will  simply  have  to  eat  dry  bread,  or  use  some 
of  this  glucose,  of  which  some  of  our  dairy  and  food  commissioners  in 
some  of  our  States,  so  industrious  in  the  endeavor  to  destroy  this  legiti- 
mate industry,  permit  to*  remain  upon  the  market. 

Much  of  the  zeal  evinced  is  more  an  effort  on  the  part  of  some  of 
those  gentlemen  to  establish  them  selves  politically  than  it  is  the  expres- 
sion of  a  desire  to  protect  the  public  interests.  In  proof  of  that  state- 
ment, I  will,  with  your  permission,  read  to  you  a  circular  which,  prior 
to  the  last  election,  was  circulated  broadcast  amongst  the  farmers  of 
our  State.  This  will  explain  itself,  gentlemen,  and  I  am  sure  that  it 
needs  no  elaboration  on  my  part. 

APRIL  13,  1900. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Case  No.  6000,  supreme  court  of  Ohio,  referred  to  in  Bulletin  No.  4  of  this 
department,  inclosed  herewith,  was  decided  in  favor  of  the  dairy  and  food  depart- 
ment on  Tuesday  last. 

A  copy  of  the  Columbus  Citizen  of  April  10,  1900,  telling  the  whole  story,  has  been 
mailed  you.  As  the  course  I  have  pursued  in  this  matter  sets  the  pace  for  the  food 
commissioners  of  other  States  of  our  Union  whose  oleomargarine  laws  are  practi- 
cally copies  of  ours,  this  victory  means  that  the  death  knell  of  oleomargarine  has 
been  sounded,  not  only  in  Ohio,  but  in  the  entire  United  States. 

S.  Rep.  2043 23 


354  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Think,  gentlemen,  of  a  public  official  appealing  for  political  support 
to  a  particular  element  with  which,  on  account  of  their  numerical  supe- 
riority over  their  competitors,  he  has  allied  himself,  not  that  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  oleomargarine  may  be  regulated,  but  that  its  death 
knell  may  ring  in  the  credulous  ears  of  those  financially  interested  in 
its  destruction  and,  drowning  temporarily  the  voice  of  their  protesting 
consciences,  permit  of  his  reelection. 

Just  think  of  such  prostitution  of  the  dignity  of  the  office  of  our  State 
dairy  and  food  commissioner : 

The  many  assurances  of  good  will  and  expressions  of  gratitude  I  have  already 
received  from  the  farmers  and  dairymen  of  Ohio  are  all  the  more  appreciated  because 
of  their  antagonism  of  the  past,  an  antagonism  that  was  engendered  hy  a  few  per- 
sons who  placed  a  greater  value  upon  their  own  opinions  as  to  the  most  effective 
method  of  making  war  against  oleomargarine  than  upon  the  advice  of  able  lawyers, 
whose  counsel  I  saw  fit  to  follow. 

So  that  is  one  of  the  duties  of  a  dairy  and  food  commissioner — to 
make  "war"  upon  a  certain  product,  and  then  try  to  use  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  as  an  ally  in  that  warfare. 

I  submit  to  you  whether  or  not  my  course  has  been  vindicated  by  the  results 
obtained. 

Believing  that  I  am  deserving  of  some  evidence  of  gratitude  and  confidence  from 
the  farmers  and  dairymen  for  this  victory,  the  benefits  of  whieh  accrue  to  them,  and 
knowing  that  their  interests  will  be  best  subserved  by  making  no  change  in  the  per- 
sonnel of  this  office,  because  of  the  possibility  that  some  of  the  points  in  the  above- 
mentioned  case  may  be  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  I  respectfully 
ask  you  to  use  your  influence  in  behalf  of  my  renomination  with  the  delegates  of 
your  county  to  the  Republican  State  convention. 

We  should  stand  together  in  a  fight  to  a  finish  against  oleomargarine.  I  will 
appreciate  very  much  an  acknowledgment  of  the  receipt  of  this,  with  any  expres- 
sions you  may  care  to  make. 

Very  truly,  yours,  J.  E.  BLACKBURN. 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  that  is  not  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact  that 
one  of  the  main  objects  of  the  attempted  enactment  and  enforcement  of 
legislation  of  this  kind  is  the  sacrifice  of  a  useful,  legitimate,  and 
(except  with  competitors)  popular  industry  on  the  altar  of  political 
ambition,  then  evidence  is  worthless  in  proving  anything.  However, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  upon  that  point  before  a  committtee  consti- 
tuted as  this  is. 

Now,  we  can  not  see  that  there  is  any  justice  whatever  in  placing  any 
tax  upon  oleomargarine.  Heaven  knows  that  its  manufacture  is  already 
sufficiently  restricted  and  that  it  is  an  utter  impossibility,  under  the 
stringent  laws  which  exist  in  almost  all  of  our  States  regulating  its 
sale,  for  any  deception  to  be  practiced  therein.  And  I  want  to  assure 
you,  gentlemen,  that  if  any  deception  in  this  connection  should  be 
attempted  in  our  part  of  the  country  it  would  be,  and  often  is,  in  under- 
taking to  palm  off  inferior  butter  for  the  product  known  as  oleomarga- 
rine. I  am  myself  a  constant  consumer  of  the  article,  and  I  propose 
that  it  shall  be  continually  used  by  my  family,  because  I  know,  and  so 
do  all  of  the  members  of  organized  labor  who  have  listened  to  the  dis- 
cussions relative  to  this  product  in  their  various  unions,  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely free  from  all  disease  germs;  that  the  process  of  its  manufacture 
is  such  as  to  destroy  all  the  bacilli  of  tuberculosis  and  various  other 
disease  germs  that  exist  in  the  cow,  and  through  the  medium  of  butter 
consumption  are  conveyed  to  the  human  system,  and  that  butter  is  not 
subjected  to  any  process  which  will  eliminate  that  element  of  danger. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  that  is  so,  would  you  not  use  it  if  it  were  of  its 
natural  color? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Well,  I  will  tell  you,  Senator;  if,  in  eating  a  nice 
ripe  apple,  it  were  harmlessly  colored  green,  I  would  not  eat  it  with 


OLEOMARGARINE.  355 

the  same  relish  that  I  would  if  it  bore  a  nice  natural  rosy  color.  In 
the  same  way,  we  from  our  childhood  have  been  used  to  eating  butter, 
and  in  a  great  many  instances  have  relished  it.  Now,  if  we  are  pre- 
sented with  a  white  product,  even  though  we  are  convinced  that  it  is 
as  good  and  as  wholesome  as  butter.  I  say  to  you  that  it  is  impossible 
for  us  to  relish  it  as  much  as  if  it  bore  the  proper  color. 

Now,  I  can  not  see  why,  when  this  coloring  matter  is  absolutely  harm- 
less, and  at  the  same  time  makes  the  product  attractive  and  appetizing, 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  should  say  to  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  "You  shall  not  enjoy  that  advantage ;  you  must  eat  it 
white."  We  say,  "  Why?"  "  Well,  because  we  say  so."  "  But  is  there 
any  particular  harm  in  eating  it  if  it  is  colored  with  a  harmless  and 
wholesome  coloring  matter?"  " No;  there  is  no  particular  harm  in  it; 
but  we  want  you  to  eat  it  white.  For  reasons  we  do  not  care  to  explain, 
the  future  welfare  of  the  nation  depends  upon  people  eating  this  product 
white." 

Gentlemen,  I  can  not  see  any  argument  in  favor  of  compelling  us  to 
eat  it  white,  if  we  prefer  to  eat  it  yellow,  as  long  as  it  will  not  injure 
our  health. 

For  example:  Suppose  I,  when  working  in  my  capacity  as  locomotive 
fireman,  come  in  from  a  hard  run,  and  there  are  two  tables  set — one  a 
bare  board,  greasy  and  black,  such  as  our  oil  cans  temporarily  rest 
upon  in  the  oil  room;  and  that  is  laden  down  with  the  most  attractive 
and  luscious  viands.  Suppose  that  on  the  other  side  there  is  a  table 
with  a  nice  white  cloth  on  it,  glistening  silverware,  sparkling  water  in 
clean  glasses,  clean  cups  for  the  coffee,  etc.,  but  the  food  is  not  up  to 
the  standard  of  that  which  is  resting  upon  the  table  of  inferior  appear- 
ance, and  I,  being  very  hungry,  have  a  choice  as  to  which  table  to  eat 
from.  Why,  I  would  most  certainly  go  to  the  clean  table  and  eat  a 
much  heartier  meal,  and  a  meal  that  I  can  digest  better,  notwithstand- 
ing the  inferiority  of  the  food.  There  is  no  question,  gentlemen,  but 
that  the  appearance  of  the  food  we  eat  has  a  great  deal  to  do  with  it, 
and  also  with  the  relish  we  may  experience  in  consuming  it.  _ 

But,  speaking  about  the  tax  on  oleomargarine,  I  can  not,  nor  can 
any  of  my  colleagues,  understand  why  there  should  be  any  tax  upon  it. 
We  have  laws  in  Ohio  regulating  the  closing  of  saloons  at  certain 
hours  on  week  days  and  all  day  on  the  Sabbath.  Quite  a  large  num- 
ber of  saloons  violate  these  laws,  yet  I  have  never  heard  of  legislation 
being  attempted  for  the  abolition  of  the  saloon  business  in  Ohio.  They 
remain  at  the  old  stand,  and  do  business  right  along,  although  hun- 
dreds and  thousands  of  our  good  citizens  are  clamoring  for  their  aboli- 
tion, or  for  the  enforcement  of  those  laws.  We  have  in  the  United 
States  a  product  known  as  whisky.  The  Government  has  exerted  all 
of  its  powers  to  try  to  enforce  a  certain  tax  known  as  the  internal- 
revenue  tax  upon  the  manufacture  of  that  product.  But  we  all  know 
that  there  are  still  illicit  distilleries  in  operation.  We  all  know  that  at 
the  present  time  there  are  being  manufactured  large  quantities  of 
whisky  from  which  the  Government  does  not  derive  one  cent  of  reve- 
nue. Yet  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  never  undertaken  to 
enact  legislation  abolishing  the  manufacture  of  whisky. 

Some  of  our  ambitious  officeholders  in  Ohio — Brother  Blackburn,  for 
instance,  or  his  attorney — tell  us  that  because  it  is  difficult  to  secure 
convictions  under  the  existing  laws  we  should  have  legislation  enacted 
which  will  absolutely  prohibit  the  manufacture  of  this  article.  It  would 
be  just  as  sensible  for  a  man  to  say  that  as  humanity  is  liable  to  commit 
murder  through  the  possible  moral  perversion  of  one  or  two  or  three  of 
its  individuals  in  each  community  a  proper  preventative  precaution  to 


356  OLEOMARGARINE. 

take  would  be  to  annihilate  humanity  altogether.  There  is  just  as 
much  sense,  gentlemen,  in  one  argument  as  there  is  in  the  other.  And 
I  want  to  say  to  you  that  the  men  who  constitute  organized  labor,  the 
men  who  are  sufficiently  appreciative  of  the  necessity  of  organization 
as  to  band  themselves  together  for  the  protection  of  their  own  interests, 
are  also  sufficiently  intelligent  to  appreciate  thoroughly  and  fully  the 
injustice  of  this  attempt  to  abolish  this  industry  and  the  nonsense  of 
the  arguments  which  are  produced  in  support  of  that  attempt. 

I  have  been  speaking  about  members  of  organized  labor.  I  will  say 
that  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  wage  earners  who  are  not 
organized,  and  who  have  not  had  the  same  opportunity  of  investigating 
the  various  phases  of  this  controversy  that  the  men  have  had  who  meet 
in  their  lodge  rooms,  and  local  union  halls,  and  give  it  full  and  intel- 
ligent discussion.  These  men  are  not  yet  aware  of  the  danger  which 
menaces  their  future  interests.  But  whenever,  in  the  very  improbable 
event  of  this  bill  being  passed  and  sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court, 
these  men  are  informed  by  their  various  grocers,  "  You  must  eat  this 
product  white,"  you  will  hear  a  protest  from  all  over  this  country  that 
will  certainly  demand  your  attention,  gentlemen.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion about  it.  Why  a  man  who  from  choice  or  necessity  uses  butterine 
should  be  compelled  to  eat  it  white,  is  something  that  he  can  not  under- 
stand, and  is  something  that  no  other  good  citizen  can  understand,  and 
no  living  man  can  satisfactorily  explain,  so  long  as  the  coloring  sub- 
stance which  has  made  it  heretofore  attractive  and  appetizing  is  in 
itself  not  only  not  deleterious  to  health,  but  wholesome  and  good  for 
human  consumption. 

To  my  personal  knowledge,  much  of  the  butter  that  is  presented 
upon  the  market  is  made  and  kept  in  bedrooms.  There  is  no  question 
about  it.  It  is  the  easiest  thing  in  the  world  to  prove.  A  trip  into  the 
country  is  all  that  is  necessary. 

We  all  know  that  there  are  not  many  health  officials  out  in  the 
country,  and  that  the  vigilant  eye  of  the  sanitary  officer  is  not  watch- 
ing the  manufacture  of  this  butter.  And  we  all  know  that  people  will 
get  used  to  almost  anything.  It  is  only  necessary  for  them  to  be  con- 
fronted with  the  necessity  of  taking  sucn  a  course  temporarily,  and  not 
being  in  a  position  to  experience  any  of  the  disadvantages  of  that  par- 
ticular method  they  can  not  see  why  they  should  discontinue  it. 
Consequently,  in  a  great  many  instances,  butter  is  made  amidst  envi- 
ronments that  would  not  be  tolerated  for  a  moment  were  it  known  to 
the  proper  health  authorities. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Excuse  me  for  interrupting  you  to  make  a  sugges- 
tion. My  idea  is  that  the  butter  made  by  the  farm  wives  is  superior 
to  all  other  kinds  of  butter. 

Mr.  McETAMEE.  I  know,  Senator.  But  you  will  pardon  me  if  I  sug- 
gest that  farm  wives  differ  in  their  habits,  however. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Yes ;  that  is  true,  of  course. 

Mr.  McISTAMEE.  And  while  there  may  be  a  great  many  farm  wives, 
and  while  I  will  admit  that  there  may  be  a  majority  of  farm  wives,  who 
understand  the  proper  method  of  manufacturing  butter,  I  desire  to  say 
to  you  that  it  has  been  my  personal  experience  that  there  are  a  great 
many  farm  wives  who  do  not  understand  how  to  make  butter  properly, 
and  if  they  did  understand  it,  butter  used  in  general  commerce  would 
be  more  easily  consumed  than  it  is  at  present. 

Take  it  among  us  railroad  men,  for  instance.  When  a  conductor 
goes  out  on  a  run,  as  we  call  it  (it  is  called  a  trip  by  the  general  pub- 
lic), he  takes  along  with  him  enough  food  to  last  until  he  gets  back 


OLEOMARGARINE.  357 

home.  In  his  basket  he  carries  a  certain  amount  of  butter.  I  remem- 
ber, before  the  use  of  oleomargarine  became  as  general  as  it  is  is  now, 
the  complaints  that  these  men  used  to  make  about  butter  getting  sour. 
The  heat  of  the  caboose  would  cause  it  to  become  rancid  and  unpalat- 
able in  a  very  short  time,  and  in  a  great  many  instances  they  would 
simply  have  to  throw  it  out.  But  since  the  use  of  oleomargarine  has 
become  general,  these  men,  without  an  exception,  take  it  along  with 
them  on  their  runs,  and  they  never  have  any  complaints  to  make 
about  it. 

Now,  I  speak  from  practical  experience,  and  I  myself,  when  going  on 
a  long  run,  have  taken  with  me  a  certain  amount  of  it  in  my  dinner 
pail.  We  used  frequently  to  fix  things  so  that  we  can  make  tea  or  coffee, 
or  something  of  that  kind,  and  try  to  have  a  hot  meal  when  we  are  out 
on  the  road.  I  am  not,  at  the  present  time,  engaged  in  railroad  serv- 
ice, but  I  have  been  until  a  comparatively  recent  date.  Eight  or  nine  of 
the  best  years  of  my  life  have  been  devoted  to  it.  And  my  experience  is 
that  the  introduction  of  butterine  has  been  a  boon  to  the  men  who  want 
sometbing  that  is  healthful  and  palatable  in  the  way  of  a  spread  for 
their  bread — men  who  are  compelled  to  take  it  along  in  their  lunch 
pails  as  these  men  are,  and  to  use  it  whenever  the  necessity  for  its  use 
arises. 

There  are  a  great  many  members  of  organized  labor  who  are  familiar 
with  the  methods  made  use  of  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine. 
They  have  visited  these  factories.  They  have  noticed  that  without 
exception  they  are  spotlessly  clean,  and  are  kept  up  to  that  standard. 
They  know  that  this  product  is  heated  to  such  a  degree  as  to  preclude 
the  possibility  of  any  disease  germs  remaining  in  it.  Chemists  have 
proven  that  such  is  the  case,  and  the  members  of  organized  labor  are 
thoroughly  satisfied  that  there  is  absolutely  no  danger  of  the  spread 
of  disease  or  of  contracting  any  disease  from  its  use.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  has  been  clearly  demonstrated  that  in  a  great  many  instances 
cows  which  yield  butter  are  afflicted  with  consumption.  The  germs  of 
consumption  exist  in  them,  and  they  will  necessarily  get  into  the 
product  known  as  butter.  Now,  of  course,  there  are  lots  of  people  who 
can  not  contract  consumption,  as  the  condition  of  their  system  will  not 
permit  the  growth  of  the  germs,  but  there  are  hundreds  of  people  who 
are  predisposed  to  it,  and  as  soon  as  such  persons  consume  butter  of 
the  kind  I  have  named  the  germs  commence  to  develop  in  them,  and, 
as  a  consequence,  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  our  citizens  ai*e  brought 
to  premature  graves  through  this  dread  disease. 

Kelative  to  the  restrictions  of  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  that  already 
exist,  I  can  not  see  that  they  can  be  improved  upon  as  protective 
measures.  Every  package  of  oleomargarine  must  be  stamped,  in  the 
first  place.  One  of  the  provisions  of  the  Grout  bill  is  as  follows: 

But  when  colored  in  imitation  of  butter  the  tax  to  be  paid  by  the  manufacturer 
shall  be  10  cents  per  pound. 

Now,  gentlemen,!  want  to  state  to  you,  upon  my  honor  as  a  man  and 
as  a  representative  of  thousands  of  members  of  organized  labor,  who 
have  empowered  me  to  come  here  and  in  their  name  and  in  their  behalf 
to  protest  as  vigorously  as  it  is  possible  for  me  to  do  against  the  enact- 
ment of  this  law,  that  the  people  in  the  section  of  country  from  which 
I  have  come  insist,  as  a  protective  measure,  upon  seeing  the  proper 
stamp  is  upon  the  paper  or  package  inclosing  the  oleomargarine  that 
they  buy,  so  that  they  can  be  sure  it  is  oleomargarine,  and  so  that  they 
shall  know  that  no  deception  is  being  practiced  upon  them. 


358  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Why  talk  about  substituting  oleomargarine  for  butter?  The  danger 
exists  now  in  the  other  direction.  That  is  absolutely  true.  There  is 
butter  at  present  being  sold,  or  at  least  on  the  market,  that  is  utterly 
unfit  for  use,  unfit  for  human  consumption;  and  when  our  citizens, 
knowing  what  they  are  purchasing,  desire  to  purchase  a  certain  article 
of  food  in  preference  to  some  other  article  which  is  not,  in  their  estima- 
tion, just  as  good,  and  when  the  article  which  they  prefer  is  in  no  sense 
injurious  to  their  health,  I  can  not  see,  nor  can  anyone  else  who  looks 
at  the  matter  properly  or  studies  the  question  thoroughly,  conceive  how 
it  can  in  any  sense  be  a  province  of  government  to  say  to  them,  "  You 
shall  not  use  it,  or  you  shall  use  it  only  under  certain  conditions." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  they  prefer  oleomargarine,  and  wish  to  have  proof 
that  it  is  oleomargarine,  why  would  they  not  prefer  to  have  it  in  its 
natural  color,  so  that  no  further  proof  would  be  required  ?  That  would 
settle  it. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Why,  Senator,  my  answer  to  your  last  question  would 
also  answer  this.  They  have  been  used  to  a  certain  color.  They  have 
become  accustomed  to  consuming  this  product  colored  as  it  is  at  present. 
Now,  as  long  as  they  prefer  to  use  it  under  that  color,  knowing  what  it 
is  composed  of,  knowing  what  its  ingredients  are,  where  is  the  justice 
or  right  or  sense  of  saying  to  them,  or  wherei,  is  it  within  the  province 
of  government  to  say  to  them,  "You  shall  not  be  permitted  to  use  it 
colored  in  this  way  ;  you  must  use  it  white  ?  "  The  same  old  question 
comes  up  over  and  over  again — "Why?"  "Because  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  says  so."  "But  why  does  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  say  so?"  etc. 

The  gentlemen  defending  the  butter  side  of  this  proposition  would 
be  in  the  same  position  then  that  a  certain  farmer,  a  member  of  the 
agricultural  committee  of  the  Ohio  house  of  representatives,  before 
which  body  I  appeared  on  behalf  of  the  Columbus  Trades  and  Labor 
Assembly  as  chairman  of  its  legislative  committee,  who  said  to  me, 
"What  will  we  do  with  all  our  cows  if  you  fellows  are  permitted  to 
manufacture  and  use  all  the  oleomargarine  you  want  to?" 

Just  as  I  told  the  gentleman  at  the  time,  if  each  of  the  farmers 
present  had  a  quarry  upon  his  property,  they  would  probably  consider 
themselves  justified  in  coming  to  the  Ohio  legislature  as  representatives 
of  that  body  and  endeavoring  to  enact  a  law  prohibiting  the  manufac- 
ture of  brick.  Why?  Simply  because  it  would  interfere  with  their 
quarry  industry  and  curtail  the  sale  of  stone  for  building  purposes. 

I  can  not  see  any  other  argument  in  support  of  the  Grout  bill;  and 
there  are  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  our  citizens  who  are 
in  the  same  unfortunate  plight  as  I  am  at  the  present  time. 

There  is  no  question,  gentlemen,  but  that  the  object  of  this  Grout 
bill  is  not  the  protection  of  the  public  in  general,  but  the  abolition  of 
the  oleomargarine  industry.  This  tax  is  not  a  reasonable  tax.  It  is  a 
prohibitive  tax.  There  is  no  question  about  that.  Put  10  cents  per 
pound  additional  tax  upon  butterine,  and  if  its  use  is  continued  who 
will  pay  that  extra  10  cents'?  The  consumer  will  pay  it — no  one  else. 
Who  is  at  the  present  time  paying  the  two-cents-per-pouud  tax  which 
our  paternal  Congress  has  placed  upon  this  product?  The  man  who 
earns  a  dollar  and  a  quarter  per  day;  the  railroad  man  who  goes  out 
at  the  risk  of  his  life  to  earn  a  living  for  himself  and  his  family;  in 
short,  the  citizens  who  consume  the  oleomargarine  are  at  present  paying 
this  two-cents-per-pound  tribute  to  the  existence  of  this  already  unjust 
law.  As  soon  as  this  tax  was  imposed  the  price  of  the  product  to  the 
consumer  advanced  2  cents  per  pound  and  has  remained  so  ever  since, 
since. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  359 

I  have  here  with  me  a  pile  of  protests  coming  from  organized  labor. 
Organized  labor,  being  familiar  with  the  danger  which  confronts  its 
interests,  has  taken  advantage  of  the  opportunity  which  that  familiarity 
gives  it  to  protest  before  the  bill  is  passed,  and,  if  possible,  by  such 
protest,  to  prevent  its  passage.  But  the  thousands,  the  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  men  who  are  not  organized  can  only  protest  (by  virtue  of 
the  fact  that  they  are  not  organized)  against  this  measure  after  they 
become  its  victims.  Then  they  will  protest,  as  all  unorganized  indi- 
viduals generally  do. 

A  great  many  people  seem  to  think  that  the  consumers  of  oleo- 
margarine regard  its  use  as  a  disgrace  or  as  an  evidence  of  impoverished 
circumstances.  This  is  not  the  case,  gentlemen.  I  myself  know  of  a 
great  many  people  in  very  good  circumstances  who  use  it  from  choice. 
Some  of  our  best  families  in  Columbus  use  it  from  choice.  I  will  ven- 
ture to  say  that  I  could  secure  from  a  great  many  members  of  our  board 
of  trade  in  Columbus,  with  many  of  whom  I  am  personally  and  intimately 
acquainted,  statements  to  the  effect  that  oleomargarine  is  constantly 
consumed  on  their  tables.  It  is  no  evidence  of  penury,  and  consequently 
it  is  no  disgrace  for  any  man's  child,  or  wife,  or  servant,  or  messenger  to 
go  away  from  the  grocery  bearing  in  his  hand,  for  c*ou sumption  by  the 
family,  a  package  of  this  oleomargarine,  stamped  as  oleomargarine. 
And  it  is  no  disgrace  for  such  an  individual  or  householder  to  go  into 
the  grocery  and  before,  or  in  the  presence  of,  a  great  many  other  people 
to  say,  "Give  me  a  pound"  or  " two  pounds  of  oleomargarine;  and  let  it 
be  stamped,  so  that  I  shall  know  it  as  such."  And  our  officious  incum- 
bents of  certain  State  positions  know  this  as  well  as  they  know  they 
are  living. 

This  precaution  has  become  almost  unnecessary  now,  because  a  great 
many,  and  in  fact  nearly  all  of  our  grocers  have  become  aware  of  the 
necessity  of  giving  people  what  they  want;  and  in  a  case  of  this  kind 
90  per  cent  of  our  people,  I  will  venture  to  say,  want  this  product.  If 
the  product  should  become  inferior,  or  if  it  should  be  adulterated,  no 
one  would  detect  the  fact  more  quickly  than  the  intelligent  consumers; 
and  at  the  present  time  it  is  to  the  advantage  of  the  oleomargarine 
manufacturers  that  the  general  public  know  that  they  are  buying  oleo- 
margarine, because,  as  I  have  said,  it  is  preferable  to  butter.  Any 
deception  that  might  be  practiced  would  work  a  great  injury  to  their 
interests,  simply  because  the  people  want  oleomargarine  and  ask  for  it. 

I  will  state,  gentlemen,  from  practical  experience  and  from  inter- 
course with  the  general  public  in  and  around  Columbus,  Ohio,  that  it  is 
the  general  impression  of  the  people  that  this  bill  can  not  get  through 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  In  conversation  with  a  great  many 
citizens  I  have  heard  them  say: 

There  need  be  no  fear  of  that.  Congressmen  have  motives  of  their  own  in  sus- 
taining such  a  bill — they  can  not  consistently  avoid  doing  so;  but  members  of  the 
Senate  need  not  entertain  any  such  fears.  There  is  no  possible  danger  of  the  bill 
getting  through  the  Senate.  *  The  Senate  is  composed  largely  of  men  who  have 
graced  judicial  benches,  of  the  most  prominent  and  learned  citizens  of  our  country, 
of  men  who  have  a  proper  appreciation  of  justice,  and  those  men  will  not  for  a 
moment  tolerate  any  attempt  to  enact  a  law  of  this  kind,  which  upon  its  face  is  so 
grossly  unjust  and  so  apparently  an  attempt  to  utilize  their  body  for  the  promotion 
of  private  interests. 

As  I  was  coming  away  from  Columbus  the  other  morning  I  passed  a 
blacksmith  shop.  There  were  brawny  horseshoers  in  there,  three  or 
four  anvils  ringing.  They  hailed  me,  called  me  in,  and  said : 

Off  for  Washington,  Mac?  Yes ;  going  at  11.35.  Well,  good  luck  to  you,  boy.  God 
speed  you.  We  all  hope  you'll  do  good  work  for  us  up  there.  Do  what  you  can 


360  OLEOMARGARINE. 

to  keep  that  bill  from  passing.  You  tell  the  Senators  up  there  that  if  they  need  any 
further  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  statements  you  make,, we'll  all  write  them  a  letter. 
We'll  block  the  mails  if  necessary.  All  they've  got  to  do  is  request  it,  and  we'll 
give  them  practical  proof,  in  our  own  handwriting,  over  our  own  signatures,  what 
our  sentiments  are. 

And  everyone  of  those  men  shook  hands  with  me  most  cordially, 
most  enthusiastically,  and  expressed  an  earnest  and  sincere  hope  that 
my  mission  here  would  be  successful. 

I  honestly  wish  it  were  possible  to  convey  that  scene  from  Columbus 
to  the  floor  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  when  this  bill  is  up 
for  discussion — that  is,  if  it  ever  does  come  up  for  discussion,  and  I 
sincerely  trust  that  it  will  not.  In  fact,  I  am  confident  that  it  will  not. 
I  am  confident  that  this  committee  will  take  proper  steps  in  regard  to 
it.  But  if  they  could  only  witness  that  scene  it  would  need  no  further 
argument  on  my  part  to  convince  them  of  the  sincerity  of  the  masses 
of  workingmen  in  demanding  its  defeat. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  think  you  had  better  file  the  papers  you  have 
there,  which  you  desire  to  present  to  the  committee,  without  reading 
them.  They  are  too  voluminous  to  read.  They  will  all  be  printed  and 
put  in  the  report. 

Mr.  MC^AMEE.  With  your  permission,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  refer  to  some  of  the  points  contained  in  some  of  these  resolutions, 
and  whenever  I  have  taken  up  too  much  of  your  time,  I  will  very  gladly 
yield  to  a  suggestion  to  quit.  But  as  long  as  you  decide  to  tolerate  me 
I  would  like  to  refer  to  some  of  the  points  in  these  resolutions. 

Here  is  an  expression  from  one  of  the  largest  representative  labor 
bodies  in  the  United  States — the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor,  and 
here  is  what  they  say  relative  to  the  tax : 

We  believe  the  efforts  to  place  a  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  on  colored  butterine  is 
inspired  by  selfish  motives,  so  that  the  manufacturers  of  butter  may  charge  an 
unreasonable  price  for  their  commodity,  and  enable  the  large  creameries  to  establish 
surely  and  securely  a  butter  trust  which  may  raise  prices  as  their  cupidity  may 
dictate. 

Here  is  another  expression : 

Justice  demands  equal  rights  for  both  manufacturers  of  butter  and  butterine,  both 
products  having  equal  merit.  Any  adverse  legislation  against  either  must  be 
condemned. 

At  the  present  time  butter  which,  in  its  original  state,  would  be  too 
unsightly  for  use,  is  being  colored  continually  with  impunity  by  the 
farmers  of  Ohio.  There  has  never  been  a  protest  raised  against  this 
coloring,  although  I  understand  it  is  illegal.  But  it  would  not  serve 
the  political  purposes  of  our  dairy  and  food  commissioner  to  enter  such 
a  protest,  although  it  would  be  strictly  in  the  line  of  his  duty.  Con- 
sequently, that  law,  if  such  exists,  is  not  enforced,  and  if  none  such 
exist,  no  attempt  has  been  ever  made  to  enact  one,  although  such  col- 
oring is  certainly  for  the  purpose  of  deception. 

I  will  venture  to  say  that  a  vast  proportion  of  our  urban  citizens,  if 
compelled  by  law  to  use  butter  as  it  appears  originally,  and  at  the 
same  time  if  forbidden  to  use  oleomargarine,  would  abstain  from  its 
use  altogether.  They  would  prefer  to  eat  dry  bread  or  to  use  some 
sort  of  substitute,  in  the  way  of  jam,  or  something  of  that  sort,  used 
as  a  spread,  confining  themselves,  for  cooking  purposes,  to  the  use  of 
lard  or  something  of  that  kind.  That  does  not  apply  to  all  butter, 
but  it  does  apply  to  the  larger  proportion  by  far  of  the  butter  that  is 
placed  upon  our  market  for  sale.  Yet  why  is  it  that  it  is  right  to  color 
butter  and  to  deceive  the  people  into  believing  that  it  is  good  Jersey 
butter,  or  some  other  kind  that  may  be  desirable,  when  it  is  really  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  361 

product  of  a  living  factory,  in  the  form  of  a  cow,  frequently  unclean 
and  disease  infected,  and  which  can  not  be  regulated  by  health  pre- 
cautions, as  a  butteriue  factory  can  ? 

Here  is  another  specific  protest  against  increasing  the  tax  on 
oleomargarine  : 

We  believe  that  the  present  Federal  law  taxing  butterine  2  cents  per  pound,  and 
the  additional  regulations  imposed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  are 
sufficient  to  properly  regulate  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine. 

Here  is  an  expression  from  some  of  the  gentlemen  to  whom  I  referred 
recently  as  having  met  in  the  blacksmith  shop. 
This  is  from  the  Journeyman  Horseshoers'  IJniou: 

We  feel  that  all  people  having  arrived  at  the  age  of  discretion  should  be  left  to 
exercise  their  own  choice  as  to  whether  they  shall  use  butter  or  oleomargine : 
Therefore,  be  it 

Resolved  by  Journeyman  Horseshoers'  Union  No.  40,  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  That  as  long 
as  butteriue  is  colored  with  a  healthful  ingredient  said  coloring  should  be  encour- 
aged, as  it  improves  the  appearance  of  the  product;  that  we  do  most  emphatically 
condemn  the  persecution  being  waged  against  the  butterine  industry;  that  we  pro- 
test against  the  attempt  to  increase  the  tax  thereon,  and  that  copies  of  this  resolu- 
tion be  forwarded  to  every  Congressman,  with  the  request  that  they  each  and  every 
one  exert  the  most  strenuous  efforts  to  crushingly  defeat  once  and  for  all  any  and  all 
measures  providing  for  the  further  taxing  of  butterine. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  know,  and  so  does  the  average  citizen  who  knows 
anything  about  the  lives  of  public  men  and  how  tbeir  time  is  occupied, 
that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  each  and 
every  Senator  or  member  of  Congress  every  letter  and  every  appeal 
and  every  communication  that  is  sent  them.  I  myself  have  a  hard 
time  in  reading  and  disposing  of  the  mail  which  I  in  my  humble  capacity 
receive.  And  when  I  realize  how  your  time,  gentlemen,  is  taken  up 
I  can  not  but  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for 
you  to  read  all  of  these  communications  or  to  give  very  much  attention 
to  them.  In  a  great  many  cases  I  know  that  they  never  get  past  the 
private  secretary,  particularly  if  the  Senator  or  Congressman  is  busy, 
and  it  must  be  something  of  a  very  important  personal  nature  on  those 
occasions  to  receive  his  attention, 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  know  of  the  fact  that  they  do  protest.  These 
labor  union  protests  have  been  coming  in  for  a  long  time.  Now,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  we  have  a  very  short  time  and  are  to  hear  Mr. 
Davis  next  this  afternoon,  there  being  only  a  few  minutes  left  before 
we  adjourn,  is  it  not  sufficient  to  file  these  protests?  If  you  have  any 
new  facts  to  present,  I  want  to  give  you  all  possible  opportunity  to 
state  them. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  I  have  already,  you  know,  asked  for  permission  to 
refer  to  various  points  in  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  should  be  glad  to  have  you  do  so  as  rapidly  as 
possible,  for  we  shall  have  to  adjourn  very  shortly. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  When  will  you  adjourn,  Senator? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  have  to  adjourn  now  in  ten  minutes,  at  12 
o'clock. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Can  I  use  those  ten  minutes? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  That  was  what  I  understood  when  the  gentleman 
gave  me  permission  to  proceed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  I  simply  wanted  to  be  sure  not  to  cut  you  off 
short,  and  to  let  you  know  that  you  only  had  a  few  minutes  left. 

Mr.  McNAMEE,  I  appreciate  that  courtesy  on  your  part,  Senator;  I 
do,  indeed. 


362  OLEOMABGAlil^E 

Here  is  something  from  the  Painters  and  Decorators  of  Cleveland, 
Ohio.  It  speaks  in  very  plain  language.  This  is  in  the  form  of  a  letter 
signed  by  Mr.  Peter  Hassenpflue,  442  Erie  street,  Cleveland,  president 
of  said  union. 

I  have  been  instructed  by  our  union,  containing  over  400  members,  to  write  and 
inform  you  that  we  are  unanimously  and  bitterly  opposed  to  the  bills  now  pending 
in  Congress  providing  for  the  persecution  of  the  butterine  industry.  As  you  doubt- 
less know,  there  are  laws  now  that  are  being  carefully  enforced  and  lived  up  to  that 
make  it  impossible  for  butterine  to  be  manufactured  and  sold  for  anything  else  but 
butteriue,  and  it  is  the  unanimous  opinion  of  our  members  that  butterine  made 
according  to  these  laws  is  better  for  all  uses  than  three-fourths  of  the  butter  that 
can  be  bought.  It  won't  get  strong,  and  it  don't  come  from  feverish  cows  that  are 
full  of  disease  germs,  and  butter  frequently  does. 


,  gentlemen,  it  may  seem  to  you  that  this  language  indicates  a 
familiarity  with  such  matters  on  the  part  of  these  workingmen  that  is 
not  consistent  with  their  usual  occupation,  or  with  the  very  limited 
time  they  have  to  devote  to  the  consideration  or  study  of  matters  of 
this  kind.  But  I  assure  you  that  they  are  familiar  with  all  these 
points;  that  they  are  discussed  continually,  pro  and  con,  in  their 
unions  ;  that  they  are  giving  deep  and  continual  attention  to  this  whole 
matter,  and  that  the  more  this  question  is  discussed  in  the  labor 
unions  the  more  and  more  do  they  become  aware  of  the  advantages  of 
using  oleomargarine  in  preference  to  butter.  These  points  are  all  con- 
sidered —  the  points  about  the  feverish  cows,  the  spread  of  disease,  the 
destruction  of  disease  germs  by  the  process  by  which  oleomargarine  is 
manufactured,  etc.  All  of  these  things  come  up  for  discussion,  and 
organized  labor  is  generally  familiar  with  them.  Unorganized  labor 
may  not  be  as  familiar  with  them,  and  may  depend  altogether  for  their 
information  on  the  subject  upon  what  may  appear  in  the  daily  news- 
papers. But,  as  I  said  before,  its  protest  will  come,  as  protests  always 
come  from  men  who  are  not  organized,  after  the  damage  has  been  done, 
after  the  injury  has  been  inflicted. 

Here  is  what  these  men  say,  and  they  say  it  in  very  plain  language: 

We  feel  this  way  —  that  if  butterine  is  wrong,  or  poison,  or  liable  to  injure  public 
health,  then  do  away  with  it  altogether;  but  if  it  is  not  (and  years  of  experience  in 
using  it  have  taught  us  it  is  not)  then  why  persecute  the  industry  and  keep  passing 
laws  against  it?  Our  belief  is  that  this  is  kept  up  just  for  political  reasons,  and 
that  some  people  in  Congress  that  tire  sworn  to  protect  the  rights  and  interests  of 
all  the  people  are  willing  to  increase  our  already  too  high  cost  of  living  and  add  to 
our  taxes  just  to  catch  the  farmer  vote  and  increase  the  business  of  the  butter  trust 
or  trusts  (and  if  butterine  is  killed  they  will  soon  be  in  one),  and  make  them  a  pres- 
ent of  the  butter  market  so  they  can  either  rob  the  people  or  make  them  go  without 
butter.  It  is  the  rankest  kind  of  injustice  to  kill  one  industry  that  is  right  and 
legitimate  in  order  to  accommodate  another.  We  want  butterine;  we  know  what 
it  is;  we  would  rather  have  it  than  butter,  and  it  is  an  outrage,  in  order  to  gratify 
the  people  who  make  butter,  that  we  should  have  to  go  without  it  and  pay  two 
prices  for  butter  which  we  are  compelled  by  law  to  eat,  and  which,  nine  cases  out  of 
ten,  is  not  fit  for  human  use.  It  is  getting  to  be  pretty  serious  when  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  is  asked  to  go  into  the  business  of  booming  certain  interests, 
and  for  their  accommodation  driving  their  competitors  out  of  existence,  simply 
because  they  are  competitors,  and  for  no  other  reason  on  earth.  A  great  deal  is 
being  said  about  butterine  being  a  certain  color.  Now,  the  only  reason  that  a  kick 
is  made  on  that  color  is  because  it  helps  to  sell  that  commodity.  If  the  butterine 
makers  were  to  use  red  or  black  or  blue,  these  patriotic  statesmen,  and  others  so 
solicitous  for  the  people's  protection,  would  raise  no  objection,  because  that  would 
make  the  same  point  that  they  want  to  make  by  law,  and  that  is  to  hurt  its  sale 
and  thereby  tickle  the  farmers  and  advance  the  interests  of  the  creamery  trusts. 
The  ingredient  used  in  butterine  which  gives  it  its  color  has  been  proven  by  official 
chemical  analysis  to  be  a  natural  and  healthful  product.  As  there  is  no  reason  to 
kill  butterine  but  because  it  hurts  another  business,  then  why  not  do  away  with 
these  hose  painting  machines  because  they  hurt  our  business? 

These  are  painters,  gentlemen.  The  hose  painting  machines  displace 
a  great  many  painters,  and  deprive  a  great  number  of  the  men  who  wield 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  363 

the  brush  for  a  living  of  employment.  They  take  a  hose  and  run  it  up 
and  down  a  wall,  and  in  ten  minutes  a  half  day's  work  is  done.  But 
these  men  very  wisely  say  that  if  Congress  will  abolish  or  prohibit  the 
manufacture  of  butterine  in  order  to  accommodate  the  manufacturers 
of  butter,  then  why  not,  on  the  same  principle,  do  away  with  these 
hose  painting  machines  to  accommodate  the  painters,  who  are  in  propor- 
tion to  the  manufacturers  of  hose  painting  machines  more  numerical 
by  far  than  the  farmers  and  creamery  people  are  in  the  same  proportion 
to  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine.  That  is  precisely  the  same 
principle  upon  which  is  based  the  Grout  bill.  It  is  the  only  motive  for 
its  attempted  enactment,  and  can  not  be  concealed. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  gentleman  will  permit  me,  allow 
me  to  suggest  now,  before  the  time  comes  for  adjournment,  since  I  see 
he  is  not  going  to  be  allowed  to  say  all  that  he  wants  to  say,  that  he 
be  allowed  to  file  these  resolutions  from  various  people  whom  he  repre- 
sents, marking  such  parts  a8  he  wishes  copied  into  the  record,  so  that 
all  he  wishes  to  have  appear  prominently  may  appear  as  part  of  his 
remarks  this  morning,  and  be  regularly  before  the  Senate.  I  see  these 
papers  which  he  has  are  too  voluminous  to  go  bodily  into  the  record; 
and  it  occurs  to  me  that  that  disposition  be  made  of  them,  in  order 
that  the  committee  may  have  the  advantage  of  having  the  important 
portions  of  them  before  it.  That  is  merely  a  suggestion.  If  it  meets 
with  no  disapproval,  I  think  the  gentleman  will  gladly  avail  himself 
of  it. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Yes;  thank  you.  I  have  just  a  few  minutes  more, 
gentlemen.  (Reading:) 

We  know  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  ask  this,  but  it  would  be  no  more  so  tlian 
for  butter  makers  to  try,  as  they  are  doing,  to  drive  butterine  out  of  existence 
because  it  hurts  their  business. 

I  will  close  by  saying  that  we  consider  any  further  legislation  by  Congress  tam- 
pering with  the  butterine  business  as  a  prostitution  of  that  dignified  body  to  the 
greed  and  avarice  of  certain  corporations  and  individuals,  at  our  sacrifice  and  that 
of  the  people  in  general  who  don't  own  farms  or  creamery  factories;  and  in  the 
name  of  my  union,  under  its  seal,  and  by  its  unanimous  instruction,  I  earnestly 
request  you  do  everything  you  can  to  defeat  all  measures  that  provide  for  the 
increase  in  the  tax  of,  or  further  interference  with  the  manufacture  or  sale  of,  but- 
teriue. 

When  railroads  first  came  into  existence,  the  proprietors  of  stage 
coaches  and  other  methods  of  conveyance  and  transportation  were  very 
much  displeased,  and  they  kicked  vigorously ;  but  of  course  their  kick 
did  not  avail  them  anything,  because  probably  their  political  influence 
was  defective  in  some  way.  Now,  if  the  farmers  should  have  to  sur- 
render to  the  manufacture  of  that  side  industry,  the  making  of  butter, 
because  the  manufacture  of  butterine  has  been  demanded  by  the 
people  in  general,  they  would  eventually  come  to  a  realization  of  the 
fact  that  after  all  they  had  not  lost  much,  because  in  the  raising  of 
stock  they  would  make  as  much,  or  at  least,  according  to  my  impres- 
sion and  the  impression  of  those  whom  I  represent,  they  would  be  as 
well  off  eventually  as  if  this  progressive  industry  were  sacrificed  now 
for  their  special  benefit. 

Now,  gentlemen,  as  the  time  is  very  limited,  as  I  have  only  one  or 
two  minutes  more,  and  as  you  have  kindly  consented  to  permit  me  to 
submit  my  argument  in  brief  form,  as  I  understand  it,  Mr.  Attorney — 
you  are  an  attorney,  are  you  not? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  McNAMEE  (continuing).  I  will  not  refer  any  further  to  this  but- 
terine question.  I  simply  wish  to  tender  to  this  committee,  and  its  dig- 
nified members  individually,  the  sincere  thanks  of  the  Columbus  Trades 


364  OLEOMARGARINE. 

and  Labor  Assembly,  and  of  the  other  organizations  which  I  represent, 
for  the  courteous  hearing  you  have  given  nie  on  this  occasion  and  for 
the  patience  with  which  you  have  borne  with  me. 

I  thank  you  sincerely,  gentlemen ;  and  I  trust  that  it  shall  be  our 
most  pleasant  duty  to  tender  this  committee  a  sincere  vote  of  thanks 
for  that  protection  of  our  interests  which  I  feel  confident  they  will 
give  us. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  very  little  time  left.  Is  there  anyone  else 
who  wishes  to  be  heard  in  that  time? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  How  much  is  there — ten  minutes? 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  was  going  to  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  if  all 
these  gentlemen  desire  to  be  heard,  some  one  or  two  of  us  can  remain 
here  and  continue  the  hearing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.    During  the  session  of  the  Senate? 

Senator  ALLEN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anybody  else  ready  to  go  on  on  this  side  of 
the  question  ! 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Acting  under  the  suggestion  of  previous  days, 
that  the  committee  would  adjourn  at  noon  until  2.30  o'clock,  it  was 
understood  that  Mr.  Davis  would  go  on  at  that  time.  He  is  not 
present  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr  Knight,  perhaps  those  men  of  whom  you  spoke, 
who  are  going  away,  can  be  heard  now  on  the  other  side  of  this 
question  f 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  gentlemen  are  here,  but  there  is  just  one  thing  to 
be  considered,  Senator.  We  do  not  want  to  break  in  or  repudiate  or 
change  in  any  way  the  arrangements  which  were  made  to  permit  us  to 
have  to-morrow. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  not  do  that;  but  as  nobody  else  seems  to 
want  the  time  to-day 

Mr.  SCHELL.  As  I  understand,  it  is  not  arranged  that  they  are  to 
have  all  of  to-morrow.  I  do  not  think  that  has  been  the  case.  We  do 
not  want  to  concede  that  on  the  record  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  so  understand  it,  unless  there  is  something  very 
special  which  would  require  a  change  in  the  plan.  That  was  the 
announcement.  You  have  had  the  floor  to-day. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  As  the  question  was  raised  yesterday,  I  think,  it  was 
understood  that  these  gentlemen  were  not  to  be  allowed  to  really  bring 
in  their  presentation  of  their  case  at  the  close.  In  other  words,  they 
are  not  to  be  allowed  to  wait  until  we  have  concluded,  and  then  bring 
in  new  arguments  or  new  facts,  or  new  alleged  facts,  without  giving  us 
the  right  to  have  something  to  say  in  reply. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  whole  matter  at  issue  between 
these  two  sides  can  be  reduced  to  one  or  two  questions'? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  To  two  questions,  perhaps. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Now,  why  is  there  any  necessity  for  going  on  with 
greater  elaboration  ? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  see  no  necessity  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  will  act  on  that  plan,  we  can  simplify  matters 
considerably. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  point  is  this,  Mr.  Chairman :  The  gentlemen  who, 
as  we  claim,  or  as  I  claim,  have  the  burden  of  proof,  have  come  in  here 
and  arraigned  us  on  certain  charges,  and  say  we  should  submit  to  cer- 
tain things.  We  put  in  a  plea  of  not  guilty.  They  claim  to  present 
their  case,  and  say,  "We  close;7'  but  they  really  present  no  case.  It 
is  a  general  charge — not  even  the  statement  of  a  case. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  365 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  for  us  to  consider. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  understand  that;  but  it'  they  have  really  reserved  an 
actual  case,  or  a  show  of  a  case,  to  bring  in  after  we  have  said  what 
we  have  to  say,  then  we  insist  upon  the  right  to  reply. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  will  understand  that  much  of  what  is  said  here 
is  familiar  knowledge  to  every  member  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is;  I  understand  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  say  that  you  did  not  expect  a  hearing  until 
half  past  2,  so  that  any  time  which  is  taken  now  by  the  other  side  will 
not  be  taken  from  you. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Oh,  we  are  not  objecting  to  their  taking  any  time  the 
committee  sees  fit  to  give  them  under  these  circumstances. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Do  I  understand  that  Mr.  Davis  will  go  on  at  half 
past  2? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  did  not  expect  Mr.  McNamee  to  speak  so  long  this 
morning  and  had  hoped  that  I  would  be  heard. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  will  be  given  time  this  afternoon.  Mr.  Davis 
will  not  be  very  long. 

Senator  ALLEN.  One  or  two  of  us  can  stay  here  and  continue  the 
hearing.  I  can  stay  here,  for  one. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  if  Senator  Allen  will  stay  here,  you  can  go 
right  along  now. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Then,  with  the  committee's  permission,  I  will  intro- 
duce Mr.  F.  J.  H.  Kracke,  assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  for  the  metropolitan  district. 

(Senator  Allen  thereupon  took  the  chair  as  acting  chairman.) 

STATEMENT  OF  FREDERICK  J.  H.  KRACKE,  ASSISTANT  COMMIS- 
SIONER OF  AGRICULTURE,  METROPOLITAN  DISTRICT,  STATE 
OF  NEW  YORK. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  Committee: 
What  I  have  to  say  will  be  very  brief. 

I  have  charge  of  the  enforcement  of  the  dairy  law  in  the  State  of 
New  York,  and  more  particularly  the  city  of  New  York.  It  is  in  that 
line  that  I  will  give  you  a  few  facts  as  they  appeal  to  us,  as  explaining 
why  this  pending  bill  is  of  particular  interest  to  the  people  of  the  State 
of  New  York. 

In  New  York  State,  bordering  as  it  does  on  New  Jersey,  we  are  labor- 
ing under  a  great  disadvantage.  The  people  of  our  State  are  pro- 
hibited from  selling  oleomargarine.  The  people  of  New  Jersey 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Kracke;  qualify  that,  please.  You 
will  be  misquoted  on  that  point.  You  mean,  do  you  not,  that  they  are 
prohibited  from  selling  oleomargarine  in  imitation  of  butter? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Yes;  they  are  prohibited  from  selling  oleomargarine 
in  imitation  of  yellow  butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  well  to  be  specific  on  these  points. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  suppose  the  law  itself  explains  that. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  feared  he  would  be  misquoted;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Now,  from  New  Jersey  these  peddlers  with  wagons  come 
over  and  deliver  oleomargarine  to  private  houses  and  boarding  houses 
in  this  way : 

An  agent  will  come  along,  calling  at  the  different  houses,  asking  for 
the  mistress  of  the  house,  and  tell  her  a  story  about  how  he  can  deliver 


366  OLEOMARGARINE. 

her  some  nice  creamery  butter  for  a  certain  price  if  she  will  contract 
with  him  for  a  year.  Of  course,  that  price  will  always  be  from  5  to  10 
cents  below  the  creamery- butter  price — 5  cents,  as  a  rule.  Then,  after 
she  has  seen  the  cheapness  of  the  thing,  the  saving  in  the  price,  believing 
this  to  be  genuine  butter,  she  will  give  the  order.  Then,  a  few  days 
later,  these  wagons  come  over  from  New  Jersey  into  N ew  York  to  deliver 
these  goods.  They  are  bought  for  and  as  butter. 

We  have  made  a  fight  there  on  this  matter,  but  we  are  handicapped 
by  reason  of  the  fact  that  these  wagons  come  over  as  express  wagons. 
Under  the  interstate  commerce  act  they  can  come  from  one  State  into 
another,  carrying  this  commodity,  and  we  have  no  jurisdiction  over 
them.  In  other  words,  the  citizens  of  another  State  are  privileged  to 
deal  in  our  State,  and  given  a  right  which  the  citizens  of  our  State  are 
denied. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Do  you  New  York  people  do  the  same  with  New 
Jersey — take  your  oleomargarine  over  there  and  sell  it? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  We  do  not  prohibit  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  colored 
oleomargarine  in  our  State  at  all. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  do  not  understand  the  question.  He  asks  if  you 
do  the  same  with  the  New  Jersey  people — sell  them  oleomargarine  for 
butter? 

Senator  FOSTER.  Do  you  send  your  wagons  over  to  New  Jersey  with 
oleomargarine  to  supply  the  people  over  there? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Well,  Senator,  there  is  not  any  made  in  the  State  of 
New  York.  Consequently  they  could  not  take  any  over  there. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  a  question? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  this  committee  that  the  New 
York  law  is  not  operative  against  the  citizen  of  New  Jersey  who  sells 
oleomargarine  in  New  York  or  who  takes  an  order  for  oleomargarine  in 
New  York? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  The  law  of  the  State  of  New  York  is  operative  against 
a  citizen  who  takes  an  order  in  the  way  you  state,  but  the  point  of  that 
is  this,  that  he  comes  from  another  State  into  our  State,  takes  this 
order,  and  returns  to  his  own  State,  and  then  has  it  delivered  in  this 
way,  which  makes  it  next  to  impossible  to  stop  the  traffic. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  the  oleomargarine,  when  it  arrives  in  the  State 
of  New  York,  is  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  that  State,  if  the  sale 
and  delivery  take  place  in  New  York,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  It  is  not  subject  to  law. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  It  is  not? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  It  is  not  subject  to  law. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Then  you  differ  with  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  in  the  case  of  Commonwealth  v.  Plumley? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  No;  I  do  not. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Senator  ALLEN).  After  the  article  comes 
into  the  State 

Mr.  KRACKE.  After  the  article  is  delivered  to  the  party,  then  it 
becomes  subject  to  the  law  of  New  York,  of  course. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  That  was  my  question. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  You  did  not  clearly  state  it  in  that  form,  then. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Your  idea  is  that  the  State  of  New  York 
can  not  prohibit  a  citizen  of  New  York  going  into  New  Jersey  and 
making  a  New  Jersey  contract  for  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  That  is  right. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  367 

Mr.  KRACKE.  That  is  the  point. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  that  is  true. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Take  the  case  of  delivering  oleomargarine  to  boarding 
houses.  Boarding  houses  in  New  York  are  prohibited  from  using 
colored  oleomargarine  or  serving  it  to  their  boarders.  But  the  point  is 
this — that  it  is  sold  to  them  as  butter  by  the  preliminary  process  of  the 
agent  coming  there  and  selling  it  to  them  as  creamery  butter. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  But  the  law  of  New  Jersey  seems  to  be  very 
nearly  the  same  as  the  law  of  New  York  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  believe  it  is;  but  I  am  not  speaking  for  New  Jersey. 
The  point  of  my  starting  out  in  this  way,  Senators,  is  this — simply  to 
bring  to  your  minds  the  question  of  fraud.  The  question  of  fraud  in 
the  whole  business  is  what  appeals  to  me  most  thoroughly  and  posi- 
tively. It  was  said  here  by  some  of  the  friends  of  the  bill  that  75  per 
cent  of  the  oleomargarine  sold  is  sold  as  and  for  butter.  Now,  I  rather 
disagree  with  them.  From  my  experience  in  New  York,  and  I  have  had 
five  years7  experience  there  in  enforcing  the  law,  I  rather  disagree  with 
that  proposition  and  that  statement.  Every  ounce  of  it  that  is  sold  in 
New  York  is  sold  as  and  for  butter,  without  any  question. 

To  give  you  an  illustration:  We  had  reason  to  suspect  a  certain 
grocery  store  of  selling  oleomargarine.  I  sent  the  inspectors  there  to 
look  the  matter  up,  but  could  not  find  any  of  the  material.  There  was 
a  renewed  complaint.  I  went  there  myself  with  the  inspectors,  and  in 
looking  the  place  over  we  found  some  butter  on  hand;  and  among  the 
empty  tubs  which  [  looked  over  the  middle  hoop  of  one  contained  a 
small  corner  of  a  revenue  stamp,  which  indicated  to  me  that  the  grocer 
had  been  handling  oleomargarine.  Shortly  after  that  a  clerk  who  had 
formerly  been  in  this  man's  employ  came  to  my  office  and  told  me  that 
the  goods  were  kept  upstairs  in  his  living  rooms;  that  this  man  kept 
oleomargarine,  but  kept  it  upstairs  in  his  living  rooms,  and  only  dealt 
it  out  discreetly  to  certain  customejs.  He  said  that  he  would  not  dare 
keep  it  in  his  store  for  fear  of  being  detected  by  our  inspectors. 

This  former  clerk  said  furthermore: 

The  method  is  this :  The  man  has  a  hoy  there  in  the  store.  Next  time  you  go  there 
you  will  see  this  boy  walking  in  the  place.  As  the  men,  ahout  10  or  11  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  get  their  orders  ready  and  they  are  put  in  the  wagon  for  delivery,  this 
boy  will  be  walking  up  and  down,  watching  the  orders.  He  will  have  on  a  very 
large  coat.  This  coat  is  very  heavily  lined,  and  it  is  interlined  and  intersewed  so 
that  it  will  permit  a  number  of  pound  prints  of  oleomargarine  to  be  placed  in  the 
lining.  The  boy  will  go  with  the  wagon,  and  when  it  gets  to  a  certain  house  where 
he  wants  to  deliver  oleomargarine  with  the  order,  whereas  butter  has  been  ordered, 
he  will  take  one  print  or  two  prints  out  of  the  lining  of  his  coat  pocket,  put  it  in 
the  order,  and  take  it  in  the  house. 

That  is  an  illustration  of  how  they  sell  oleomargarine  for  butter,  gen- 
tlemen. 

Mr.  MILLER.  What  do  they  do  on  hot  days? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  This  was  not  a  hot  day.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  MILLER.  How  many  pounds  did  this  boy  carry  at  once? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  He  carried  28  pounds. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Now,  do  you  mean  to  tell  the  committee  that  the 
person  to  whom  that  oleomargarine  was  delivered  was  deceived  in  the 
purchase? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Unquestionably. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  know  that,  or  is  it  simply  a  question  of 
opinion  ? 


368  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  know  it  absolutely;  because  we  went  there  and 
asked  them,  and  after  that  they  testified  to  it.  Moreover,  they  paid 
28  cents  a  pound  for  it. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  In  how  many  instances  did  you  find  that  to  be 
true  ? 

Mr.  KRACKE,  In  every  instance. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  How  many  were  there? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  What  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Of  how  many  cases  of  that  kind  have  yon  any 
recollection  1 

Mr.  KRACKE.  One  thousand.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  mean  prosecutions'? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  One  thousand  prosecutions. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  What  was  the  prosecution  for — selling  oleomar- 
garine for  butter? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Selling  oleomargarine  for  butter. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Or  was  it  for  selling  oleomargarine  colored? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Selling  colored  oleomargarine  for  butter. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  That  was  what  the  prosecution  was  for? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  That  was  what  the  prosecution  was  for,  and  there  were 
1,000  convictions,  too. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  In  how  long  a  time? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  In  the  last  three  or  four  years.  Do  you  want  me  to 
go  back  further? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  You  say  three  or  four  years? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JELKE.  And  yet  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  is  not  stopped  in  New 
York !  Does  not  that  show  that  the  people  want  it? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  No;  I  rather  think  it  shows  the  people  do  not  want  it. 
The  people  do  not  want  it;  the  consumer  does  not  want  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  shows  that  the  grocer  wants  it. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Mr.  Kracke  speaks  for  New  York  only. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  There  is  one  other  point  to  which  I  want  briefly  to 
call  attention,  and  that  is  the  fact  that  there  appeared  before  this  com- 
mittee last  week  a  man  from  New  York  who  stated  that  he  was  a  com- 
mission merchant  and  a  dealer  in  butter.  In  making  his  statement  he 
took  up  an  interview  of  mine  in  a  New  York  paper  and  attempted  to 
distort  it  so  as  to  have  me  say  something  that  I  did  not  say.  I  refer  to 
Mr.  Lestrade,  who  came  here  and  made  a  statement  before  the  committee. 
I  wish  now  to  ask  the  committee  if  Mr.  Lestrade  told  the  committee 
that  he  was  an  oleomargarine  manufacturer? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  know,  Mr.  Kracke,  what  the  record 
shows  in  that  respect.  It  is  all  printed  wherever  it  may  be. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Mr.  Lestrade  is  a  member  of  this  mercantile  exchange 
of  New  York,  which  is  composed  of  500  or  GOO  commission  merchants, 
dealers  in  butter,  who  passed  a  unanimous  resolution  favoring  this  bill. 
Then  he  came  here  representing  himself  to  be  (as  he  is)  a  merchant  in 
New  York  City,  a  dealer  in  butter  there.  I  would  not  have  made  this 
reference,  however,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  fact  that  he  attempted  to 
distort  a  statement  of  mine  so  as  to  construe  it  as  favorable  to  his  side 
of  the  case.  For  that  reason  I  raised  this  question. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Knight,  you  may  read  the  statement 
referred  to,  if  you  find  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT  (after  examining  printed  report  of  hearings).  It  has  not 
been  printed  yet. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  have  not  anything  further  to  say,  gentlemen.  I 
simply  wanted  to  call  attention  to  that  matter. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  309 

Mr.  SCHELL.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit  me  a  question.  Your  laws 
in  New  York  are  considered  as  being  practically  enforced,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  think  they  are. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Then  your  State  laws  are  capable  of  enforcement,  if 
they  get  competent  men  like  yourself  and  Mr.  Flanders  to  enforce  them? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  think  they  are. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Kracke,  about  what  does  the  State  of  New  York 
expend  per  year  in  the  enforcement  of  those  laws? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Particularly  for  this  line  of  work  about  $140,000  a  year. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  how  many  men  are  required  to  cover  the  State? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Sixty-odd  men. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  how  long  has  it  taken  you  to  organize  this  depart- 
ment up  to  its  present  efficiency? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Seventeen  years. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  You  say  you  expend  $140,000  yearly  in  this  line 
of  work.  Do  you  mean  particularly  adulterations  of  butter? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  No;  dairy  products.  We  have  other  branches  in  our 
work,  too. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Precisely.  How  much  of  that  sum,  in  your  judg- 
ment, is  used  in  the  prosecution  of  persons  selling  oleomargarine  as 
butter? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Well,  I  could  not  tell  you  that,  particularly.  There  is 
one  thing  that  I  will  say,  and  that  is  that  there  is  very  little  oleomar- 
garine found  in  New  York  outside  of  the  city  of  New  York. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Then,  so  far  as  New  York  is  concerned,  its  citi- 
zens are  not  deeply  interested  in  this  bill?  Their  own  State  laws  are 
quite  sufficient  for  their  protection? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Well,  no ;  because  that  would  be  selfish. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Well,  they  have  a  right  to  be  selfish. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  But  they  are  not  selfish.  A  man  coming  from  New 
York  would  not  be  selfish.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Kracke,  about  what  proportion  of  the  time  of  your 
department,  in  your  district,  is  devoted  to  the  oleomargarine  question  ? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  More  than  two-thirds  of  the  time. 

Mr.  MILLER.  How  much  butter  is  sold  in  the  State  of  New  York  in 
a  year? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  can  best  answer  that  by  referring  you  to  the  report 
given  by  the  Treasury  Department,  which  stated  that  last  year  there 
were  a  little  over  200,000  pounds  sold  there. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But,  Mr.  Kracke,  that  does  not  include  the  amount 
that  may  be  brought  over  from  New  Jersey  in  these  wagons  of  which 
you  speak. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Well,  of  course  I  have  no  knowledge  or  record  of  what 
is  brought  over.  There  is  some  brought  over. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Have  you  ever  had  any  trouble,  Mr.  Kracke,  with  any 
Providence  concern  shipping  stuff  in  through  Jersey  City? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Well,  there  was  trouble  with  this  particular  one — 
Lestrade  Brothers. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  are  there  any  others?  Have  you  ever  had  any 
trouble  with  any  other  Providence  concern? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Not  that  I  know  of  particularly;  and  we  do  not  make 
a  specialty  of  looking  up  any  particular  manufacturer.  Oleomargarine 
palmed  off  in  New  York  is  oleomargarine;  and  we  have  tried  to  steer 
clear  of  making  a  bee-line  for  any  particular  manufacturer.  That  is 
not  our  province.  Oleomargarine,  to  us,  is  oleomargarine,  and  contra- 
band to  the  law. 

S.  Rep.  2043 24 


370  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Now,  do  you  know  anything  about  the  amount  of 
butter  that  there  is  consumed  in  the  State  of  New  York? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  could  tell  you  more  particularly  as  to  the  amount  of 
butter  that  is  consumed  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Very  well;  what  is  that! 

Mr.  KRACKE.  There  was  consumed  last  year  in  the  city  of  New  York 
a  little  over  $18,000,000  worth. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  And  that  would  represent  how  many  pounds'? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Twenty  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  About  110,000,000  pounds,  then. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  make  it  90,000,000  pounds. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  110,000,000  pounds. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Why,  you  say  there  is  $18,000,000  worth  sold? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  About  $18,000,000  worth. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Then  that  would  be  90,000,000  pounds  of  butter 
consumed  in  the  city  of  New  York  last  year? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  About,  as  I  remember  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  in  Greater  New  York? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Yes. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Mr.  Kracke,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question.  I 
understand  that  you  have  spent  a  very  large  portion  of  an  appropriation 
of  $140,000  a  year  in  enforcing  the  dairy  laws  of  New  York  with  reference 
to  the  sale  of  oleomargarine.  Would  it  be  necessary  to  expend  that 
amount  which  you  now  expend,  or  any  considerable  portion  of  it.  if 
oleomargarine  were  made  under  its  own  color,  and  not  colored  in  imita- 
tion of  butter? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  It  certainly  would  not. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  it  would  if  it  were  sold  for  butter.  As  1 
understand,  colored  oleomargarine  can  not  be  sold  in  New  York  at  all, 
except  in  violation  of  the  law. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  So  that  if  oleomargarine  should  continue  to  be 
sold  as  butter  it  would  be  sold  colored,  and  you  would  have  the  same 
difficulty  in  enforcing  the  law  then  that  you  have  now,  would  you  not? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  do  not  catch  your  question.  In  the  event  that  this 
law  is  passed,  you  say 

Mr.  TILUNGHAST.  If  this  bill  goes  into  effect,  we  will  say,  the  cost 
of  oleomargarine  would  be  enhanced? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  even  at  the  enhanced  price  it  would  still  be 
able  to  compete  with  butter,  would  it  not  ? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  At  certain  times  of  the  year  it  would;  yes. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  And  therefore  there  would  be  the  same  tempta- 
tion then  to  sell  it  for  butter  there  is  now? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Well,  not  quite. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Not  quite;  but  there  would  be  some  temptation? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Because  putting  an  additional  tax  of  8  cents  per  pound 
on  it  would  take  away  quite  a  good  deal  of  the  profit  on  it. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Do  we  understand  you  to  say  that  the  entire  annual 
appropriation  for  your  department  is  $140,000? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  No. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  What  is  the  entire  appropriation? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  The  entire  appropriation  will  run  up  to  between  three 
and  four  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Now,  what  per  cent  of  this  $140,000  that  is  appro- 
priated for  the  particular  enforcement  of  the  dairy  laws  is  used  for  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  371 

purpose  of  preventing  the  use  of  preservatives  in  milk,  the  using  of  poi- 
sonous coloring  matter  in  butter,  and  things  of  that  kind?  Or  do  you 
pay  any  attention  to  those  phases  of  the  matter? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Oh,  yes,  yes.  Just  during  this  past  month  we  received 
fines  amounting  to  $1,800  for  adulterated  milk  and  milk  that  had  pre- 
servatives in  it — that  is,  in  New  York  City  alone. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Just  one  more  question.  As  I  understood  you, 
there  are  90,000,000  pounds  of  butter  consumed  in  the  city  of  Few  York 
yearly.  One  per  cent  of  that  amount  would  be  900,000  pounds? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Yes. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  So  that  the  amount  of  oleomargarine  consumed 
in  your  State,  assuming  it  to  be  200,000  pounds,  is  less  than  one-quarter 
of  1  per  cent  of  the  whole  amount  of  butter  sold  in  the  city  of  New  York 
alone? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Eight  you  are. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Now,  assuming  that  there  is  quite  a  large  amount 
of  butter  sold  in  the  State  of  New  York  in  addition  to  what  there  is 
sold  in  the  city  of  New  York 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Yes. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST  (continuing).  Can  you  figure  up  what  possible 
effect  the  small  amount  of  oleomargarine  consumed  by  your  State 
would  have  upon  the  farming  industry  of  that  State? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Well,  1  have  not  gotten  down  to  figuring  just  yet. 

Mr.  DILLON.  Mr.  Kracke,  is  there  not  some  colored  oleomargarine 
which  comes  into  New  York  from  New  Jersey  and  other  States,  and  is 
sold  on  the  markets  there  as  butter  that  you  do  not  know  about,  and 
that  does  not  enter  into  the  records  at  all? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  have  so  stated,  but  that  does  not  amount  to  very 
much. 

Mr.  DILLON.  And,  Mr.  Kracke,  this  gentleman  speaks  of  the  effect 
on  the  New  York  farmer  alone.  Is  it  not  true  that  a  good  deal  of  the 
New  York  product  goes  out  of  the  State  and  out  of  New  York  City  to 
find  a  market  where  it  meets  the  competition  of  this  colored  oleomar- 
garine, made  in  imitation  of  butter,  where  the  States  are  not  so  strict 
in  enforcing  the  laws  as  you  are  in  New  York  State? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  The  point  is  this:  Most  of  the  butter  made  in  New 
York  State,  especially  in  the  eastern  and  northeastern  sections,  goes  to 
the  Boston  market.  Only  a  very  little  of  it  (if  I  remember  correctly, 
only  200,000  pounds)  comes  in  to 'New  York  City  from  New  York  State. 
Con  sequently 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  mean  200,000  packages,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  mean  200,000  packages.  Consequently,  it  is  of  vital 
interest  to  the  people — the  farmers  and  the  dairymen  of  the  State  of 
New  York — to  have  a  law  that  will  prohibit  this  fraud  all  over  this 
country. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  you  have  the  same  law  in  Massachusetts  that 
you  have  in  New  York,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  And  it  is  enforced  ? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Oh,  yes.     Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  Mr.  Kracke  a  question.  What 
proportion  of  the  butter  which  comes  to  New  York  City  is  from  the 
State  of  New  York?  You  said  about  200,000  packages,  did  you  not, 
out  of  2,000,000? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Yes. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  About  10  per  cent.    Is  that  true? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Yes  5  a  little  less  than  10  per  cent. 


372  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Now,  why  is  it  that  Illinois  and  Ohio  and  Michigan  and 
Pennsylvania,  we  will  say,  are  compelled  to  come  to  New  York  to  find 
a  market  for  their  butter  in  competition  with  your  New  York  producers? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Why,  very  likely  for  the  reason  that  they  find  no  sale 
for  it  out  there. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  when  a  million  pounds  of 
oleomargarine  are  sold  in  Illinois,  displacing  a  million  pounds  of  butter 
in  the  State  of  Illinois,  that  amount  of  butter  has  to  come  to  the  city  of 
Isew  York  for  a  market,  because  it  is  crowded  out  at  home,  and,  so  far 
as  the  farmer  is  concerned,  in  the  question  of  supply  and  demand,  it 
might  as  well  be  oleomargarine  ? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  As  a  matter  of  equalization,  it  affects  the  farmer  of 
New  York  as  well  as  it  does  the  farmer  of  Illinois. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  State  laws  of  New  York, 
which  you  are  paying  $140,000  a  year  to  enforce,  are  1)0  per  cent  of  pro- 
tection to  other  States  where  they  are  10  per  cent  of  protection  to  New 
York.  Is  not  that  true  ? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Well,  that  is  largely  true. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Chair,  however,  in 
answer  to  the  suggestion  a  little  while  ago  that  these  things  could  be 
boiled  down  to  one  or  two  propositions,  to  the  fact  that  these  statistics 
are  in  regard  to  the  competition  of  oleomargarine  and  butter,  and  not 
in  regard  to  any  fraud  whatever  in  the  case.  We  are  getting  out  of 
the  question  of  fraud. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  I  see  that.  Of  course  your  time  is 
limited  to  to-day  and  to-morrow;  but  it'  you  see  fit  to  fritter  it  away— 

Mr.  SCHELL.  You  must  remember  that  these  are  the  friends  of  the 
bill  frittering  away  our  time. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  no ;  this  is  not  your  time. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Not  until  half  past  2  o'clock. 

Mr.  KRACKE.  In  was  only  for  that  reason  that  I  went  on — because 
it  was  nobody's  time — just  lunch  time. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  will  understand  that  this  evidence  is 
all  printed  and  read  over.  From  time  to  time  everything  that  occurs 
here  comes  out  in  this  pamphlet  form,  and  then  is  printed  in  book  form. 
After  it  is  printed,  it  is  read  over  thoroughly  and  carefully  by  each 
member  of  the  committee;  and  then  the  committee  comes  together 
and  determines  what  to  do.  So  if  members  are  not  here  to  hear  you, 
they  will  hear  you  by  reading  your  evidence. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Was  it  intended,  Senator,  that  any  other  of  the  dairy 
representatives  should  take  this  time  at  noon?  Are  you  willing  to 
stay? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  go  on  and  take  this  time  until 
half  past  2.  I  think,  however,  that  we  had  possibly  better  take  au 
adjournment  of  five  or  ten  minutes,  after  a  while,  for  some  lunch. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Dillon,  editor  of  the  Eural  New  Yorker,  is  here 
from  New  York,  and  would  like  to  say  a  few  words  in  behalf  of  the 
farmers. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  select  your  own  order  of  pre- 
senting your  speakers. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Then  I  will  introduce  Mr.  J.  J.  Dillon,  editor  of  the 
Bural  New  Yorker. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  373 

STATEMENT  OF  J.  J.  DILLON,  ESQ..,  EDITOR  OF  THE  RURAL  NEW 

YORKER. 

Mr.  DILLON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  will  take  up  very  lit- 
tle of  your  time  on  the  pending  question. 

I  am  connected  with  (and,  in  fact,  am  publishing)  the  publication 
called  the  Rural  New  Yorker.  My  duties  in  that  connection  bring  me 
in  contact  with  a  great  many  ot  the  farmers  throughout  the  whole  coun- 
try, and  1  am  interested  in  farming  and  in  dairying  myself. 

We  farmers  look  at  this  matter  as  simply  one  of  right  and  wrong — a 
matter  of  fraud.  We  have  been  making  a  product  of  human  consump- 
tion for  a  great  many  years.  We  have  been  putting  it  up  in  a  certain 
form,  under  a  certain  color,  and  have  established  a  trade  for  it  as  a 
healthful  and  nutritious  article  of  human  food. 

Now,  there  come  along  these  manufacturers.  They  recognize  the 
value  of  our  trade;  and  they  put  up  a  product  that  costs  them  to  man- 
ufacture something  like  one-half  of  the  cost  of  the  genuine  article  of 
butter;  and  by  coloring  it  in  imitation  of  butter,  putting  it  up  as  we 
put  up  butter,  and  putting  it  on  the  market  just  as  we  put  butter  on 
the  market,  they  have  been  able  in  certain  cases  to  work  into  our 
trade. 

The  majority  of  the  States  have  said,  through  their  State  laws,  that 
this  should  not  be.  We  have  endeavored  to  put  certain  restrictions 
on  the  manufacture  and  especially  on  the  sale  of  oleomargarine.  We 
have  tried  to  get  them  to  sell  oleomargarine  for  just  what  it  is.  Our 
State  laws  have  been,  for  the  most  part,  failures,  however  We  have 
succeeded  fairly  well  in  New  York  State  in  keeping  out  a  large  por- 
tion of  what  formerly  came  there;  but  it  is  coming  in  to  some  extent 
(as  Mr.  Kracke  has  said)  from  New  Jersey  and  from  other  States. 
Some  of  it  is  detected  and  some  of  it  goes  undetected. 

Then,  some  of  it  comes  into  competition  with  our  butter  in  another 
way.  If  the  local  laws  of  other  States  are  not  enforced  and  it  goes 
into  consumption  there,  then  the  butter  made  in  those  States  enters 
into  competition  with  our  butter  in  our  home  markets.  But  for  all 
that,  it  resolves  itself  into  a  matter  of  imitating  our  product. 

Now,  im  the  absence  of  State  laws  that  are  able  to  protect  us,  we 
come  to  Congress,  and  say:  "Give  us  a  law  which  will  simply  prohibit 
the  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  from  imitating  our  product  and  from 
selling  it  a»s  butter."  That  is  all  we  ask.  We  do  not  care  how  much 
they  sell,  if  they  sell  it  for  just  what  it  is.  All  that  we  ask  Congress 
to  do  is  to  simply  give  us  some  protection  in  the  product  we  have  been 
making  for  years,  and  for  which  we  have  built  up  a  trade. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a  question? 

Mr.  DILLON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  consider  that  this  law  for  which  you  are 
asking  is  a  prohibitive  law? 

Mr.  DILLON.  We  do  not  consider  it  a  prohibitive  law. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  you  said  that  that  was  what  you  wanted. 

Mr.  DILLON.  A  prohibitory  law  ? 

Mr.  ROYCE.  For  selling  it  as  butter — not  for  selling  it  as  oleomarga- 
rine? 

Mr.  DILLON.  Yes;  we  want  its  sale  as  butter  prohibited;  that  is  all. 
We  simply  want  Congress  to  say  to  the  manufacturer  of  oleomarga- 
rine, "You  must  not  put  up  your  product  in  a  form  that  imitates  and 
that  will  enable  you  to  sell  it  as  butter."  That  is  all  we  ask. 


374  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Now,  we  farmers  look  at  iu  this  way:  Our  cream  has  a  certain  color, 
a  certain  appearance.  It  is  refrigerated  and  frozen,  and  we  sell  it  as 
ice  cream:  and  as  such  it  has  a  certain  color.  Many  manufacturers  go 
on  a  little  further  and  give  it  different  colors.  They  give  it  a  choco- 
late color,  they  give  it  a  pink  color,  and  they  give  it  various  other 
colors.  That  does  not  interfere  with  its  use  at  all.  We  go  on  eating 
ice  cream  just  the  same;  in  fact,  we  often  have  different  colors  on  our 
plate  at  one  time. 

But  these  gentlemen  come  in  from  their  oleomargarine  factories,  and 
they  say:  "  That  is  all  right,  but  we  can't  sell  our  product  in  its 
natural  condition.  We  must  have  the  same  color  for  it  that  you  have 
for  butter,  in  order  to  sell  it." 

Well,  that  is  true.  They  must  have  that  color,  or  they  can't  sell  it. 
But  if  people  will  eat  ice  cream  colored  pink  or  given  the  color  of  choco- 
late, what  is  the  objection  to  their  eating  oleomargarine  under  those 
same  colors?  Why  is  it  that  they  have  to  come  right  in  here  and  imi- 
tate our  product? 

That  is  all  that  we  ask. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  to  a  question? 

Mr.  DILLON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  If  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine  is  so  reprehensible, 
why  is  it  that  so  many  farmers  resort  to  that  practice  in  making  their 
butter? 

Mr.  DILLON.  Coloring  oleomargarine  is  reprehensible  for  the  reason 
that  it  imitates  another  product,  and  it  tries  to  deceive  the  consumer 
by  making  a  product  that  is  not  butter  appear  as  butter,  and  tries  to 
poke  it  down  the  throats  and  into  the  stomachs  of  people  who  do  not 
want  it  and  who  would  not  have  it  if  they  knew  what  it  was. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  this  bill  does  not  prevent  the  coloring  of  oleo 
margarine. 

Mr.  DILLON.  No;  it  does  not  prevent  you  from  coloring  it. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Then  it  is  not  wrong  to  color  it,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  DILLON.  It  is  not  wrong  to  color  what? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Oleomargarine.    The  bill  does  not  say  that  it  is  wrong. 

Mr.  DILLON.  It  does  not  make  any  difference  to  me  what  the  bill 
says.  To  my  mind  it  is  wrong  to  imitate  butter  fn  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine.  That  is,  it  is  always  wrong  to  take  one  article  and  try 
to  sell  it  on  the  reputation  of  another. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Then  what  do  the  farmers  endeavor  to  imitate  when 
they  color  butter? 

Mr.  DILLON.  They  do  not  endeavor  to  imitate  anything.  They  do 
not  imitate  anything.  Now,  let  me  ask  you  a  question.  I  am  a  sort  of 
a  Yankee;  and  we  have  a  way  of  answering  questions  sometimes  by 
asking  them.  Did  you  ever  know  a  man  to  be  deceived  in  buying 
butter? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Did  I  ever  know  a  man  to  buy  butter  and  be  deceived 
in  it? 

Mr.  DILLON.  Yes;  did  you  ever  know  a  man  to  be  deceived  when  he 
bought  butter? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  think  it  has  been  stated  here  that  he  sometimes  got 
oleomargarine. 

Mr.  DILLON.  That  is  all  right,  now.  Did  you  ever  know  a  man  to 
be  deceived  in  buying  butter  by  the  color  of  that  butter? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  I  have  often  known  men  to  buy  butter  for  good  but- 
ter, and  after  it  had  been  in  the  house  two  or  three  hours  they  could 
not  use  it.  I  have  had  that  kind  of  experience  myself. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  375 

Mr.  DILLON.  That  does  not  answer  the  question  at  all.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, our  point  is  just  this:  We  make  butter.  We  have  made  it  for 
centuries.  We  have  an  honest  product,  and  all  that  we  want  these 
people  to  do  is  to  keep  their  hands  off  and  let  us  alone. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Then  you  are  satisfied  with  your  own  State  law? 

Mr.  DILLON.  We  are  not  satisfied  with  our  own  State  law.  Of  what 
avail  is  our  own  State  law  to  us,  when  right  over  in  New  Jersey  and 
Illinois  and  Ohio  and  those  other  States  they  go  right  on  and  ignore 
the  laws  and  consume  oleomargarine  there,  and  then  send  their  butter 
into  our  markets  and  into  other  markets  where  we  ought  to  go,  to  com- 
pete with  us  ? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  there  is  being  manufactured 
very  extensively  at  this  time  in  New  York  a  product  known  as  process 
butter,  that  is  colored  and  fixed  up  in  imitation  of  good  butter? 

Mr.  DILLON.  I  do  not  think  there  is.     I  think  not;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Now,  Mr.  Dillon,  on  that  same  principle  (pardon  me 
for  being  so  persistent),  would  you  not  do  this?  You  say  that  you  have 
an  honest  industry,  which  has  been  in  existence  for  centuries? 

Mr.  DILLON.  I  do. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Now,  would  you,  on  the  same  grounds,  be  in  favor 
of  doing  away  with  the  pneumatic  tubes  or  the  little  cash  railways  in 
dry-goods  stores,  simply  because  the  cash  boys  have  been  displaced, 
and  because  there  has  been  an  honest  method  of  securing  change  in 
the  stores  displaced  ? 

Mr.  DILLON.  I  would  if  the  manufacturer  of  those  tubes  got  them 
up  as  automaton  boys,  and  tried  to  make  the  users  of  them  believe  that 
they  were  genuine  flesh  and  blood.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  McNAMEK.  That  is  reducing  the  argument  to  an  absurdity. 

Mr.  DILLON.  Well,  sir;  you  started  it,  and  I  hope  you  will  get  all 
the  benefit  there  is  in  it. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Just  one  question,  which  I  think  the  gentleman  will 
take  pleasure  in  answering,  and  which  I  think  is  pertinent,  and  about 
the  only  question  I  have  aimed  to  put  during  the  entire  proceedings: 

Your  only  object,  as  I  understand,  is  to  force  oleomargarine  on  "  its 
own  side  of  the  fence."  Now,  if  (mark  the  if)  it  is  possible  to  get  a  law 
by  which  the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  and  dealer  would  be  com- 
pelled to  sell  their  product  for  what  it  is,  you  would  not  object  to  his 
coloring  it  with  harmless  coloring  matter,  would  you?  And  if  it  were 
shown  to  you,  as  an  honest  man,  that  the  effect  of  this  bill  would  be, 
not  to  regulate  the  color  question,  but  to  practically  drive  the  colored 
product  out  of  existence,  whether  sold  honestly  or  not,  you  would  be 
with  the  opponents  of  the  bill  rather  than  with  its  friends,  would  you 
not? 

Mr.  DILLON.  Well,  you  imply  quite  a  good  many  ifs. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is  only  conditioned  in  that  way  that  I  want  your 
answer. 

Mr.  DILLON.  In  order  to  answer  that  question  intelligently,  let  me 
say  this :  In  the  first  place,  we  have  been  trying  to  do  for  you  for  seven- 
teen years  what  you  propose  now  to  do  in  a  certain  series  of  ifs.  We 
have  been  trying  to  get  you  to  sell  oleomargarine  for  what  it  is. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  On  the  contrary,  have  you  not  been  trying  to  put 
colored  oleomargarine  out  of  your  State?  That  is  the  law  is  it  not? 
Your  law  is  entirely  prohibitive  as  to  colored  oleomargarine,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Just  one  moment.  For  seven  years  it  was  tried,  in  our 
State,  to  compel  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  for  what  it  really  was. 

Mr.  DILLON.  Mr.  Kracke  has  said  what  I  was  about  to  say. 


376  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  KRACKE  (continuing).  And  then  it  was  finally  found  to  be 
absolutely  impossible.  Hence  the  law  that  prohibits  the  sale  of  col- 
ored oleomargarine. 

Mr.  DILLON.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  after  we  have  tried  year  after 
year  and  in  various  ways  to  get  these  people  to  do  what  they  come  in 
here  now  and  surround  with  a  lot  of  "  ifs,"  and  after  having  tried  in 
every  way  that  we  could  possibly  devise,  and  having  failed  to  find  any- 
thing that  would  restrict  this  imitation,  then  they  come  around  here 
now,  and  get  to  the  last  ditch,  and  ask  us  if  we  will  agree  to  a  certain 
thing  under  certain  conditions. 

I  answer  that  if  it  were  possible  for  us  to  do  that,  if  it  were  possible 
for  it  to  be  done  in  another  way,  it  would  have  been  done  before.  We 
have  nothing  whatever  against  this  product,  except  to  prevent  them 
from  making  it  and  selling  it  in  imitation  of  our  product.  Now,  that 
is  our  whole  case. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  factories,  so  far  as  I  am  advised,  are  right  with 
the  gentleman  on  that  proposition,  and  they  favor  to  a  unit,  as  I  am 
told,  the  substitute  bill  in  the  House,  under  which  they  are  compelled 
to  put  up  their  product  in  original  packages  of  not  to  exceed  1  and  2 
pounds,  with  the  word  " oleomargarine"  stamped  therein,  and  wrap 
them  and  stamp  them  with  the  Government  stamp,  so  that  no  con- 
sumer can  purchase  the  product  except  with  full  knowledge  of  what 
it  is. 

Mr.  DILLON.  I  am  familiar  with  the  "  substitute  bill "  of  which  you 
speak,  and  I  recognize  the  very  able  work  done  by  the  oleomargarine 
interests  in  framing  that  substitute.  It  will  do  the  work  they  want 
done,  but  it  would  not  answer  our  purpose  worth  a  cent. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  would  answer  your  purpose,  but  it  would  not  answer 
the  purpose  of  the  friends  of  the  Grout  bill.  It  would  answer  the  pur- 
pose of  compelling  oleomargarine  to  be  sold  on  its  merits,  but  it  would 
not  drive  the  colored  product  out  of  the  market.  As  it  has  been 
expressed  here,  it  would  not  "  legislate  a  poor  man's  poverty  on  his 
table  three  times  a  day." 

Mr.  DILLON.  Now,  my  friend,  look  here.  Suppose  I  were  a  restau- 
rant keeper  in  New  York  or  a  boarding  house  keeper,  and  you  were  so 
unfortunate  as  to  be  obliged  to  live  at  my  table.  What  would  there 
be  to  prevent  my  going  over  into  New  Jersey  and  (under  this  bill  of 
which  you  speak)  buying  oleomargarine,  bringing  it  into  iny  cellar, 
putting  it  down  there  in  the  dark  where  there  was  nobody  but  myself 
and  a  tallow  dip — I  might  make  the  tallow  from  the  oleomargarine,  I 
suppose — taking  off  those  marks,  and  bringing  it  up  and  putting  it  on 
my  table  and  giving  it  to  you  to  eat?  What  would  there  be  to  prevent 
my  doing  that?  • 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  has  been  conceded  by  all  the  opponents  of  the  bill,  I 
think,  that  it  would  be  possible  (for  the  time  being,  at  least)  for  a 
boarding-house  keeper  or  a  hotel  proprietor  to  palm  off'  oleomargarine 
for  butter  if  he  wished.  But,  on  the  contrary,  if  a  man  gets  dissatis- 
fied with  his  boarding  house  it  is  a  very  easy  matter  to  move;  and  it 
finally  comes  to  the  point  where  these  (in  some  instances)  very  efficient 
pure-food  commissioners 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Mr.  Chairman 

Mr.  SCHELL.  One  moment ;  we  are  both  talking.  We  have  observed 
the  courtesy  of  debate  all  along,  and  we  expect  you  to  do  the  same.  A 
man  can  change  his  boarding  house  and  he  can  change  his  hotel;  and 
it  finally  drives  it  to  a  point  where  these  very  efficient  pure-food  com- 
missioners, such  as  Mr.  Kracke,  for  instance,  know  right  where  to  go 
and  investigate. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  377 

Mr.  DILLON.  That  is  all  I  want.  You.  admit  that  it  is  possible  for 
me,  as  a  boarding  house  keeper  or  as  a  restaurant  keeper,  to  palm  off 
oleomargarine  on  you  as  butter.  Now,  that  is  the  whole  scheme  of 
your  job  all  the  way  through,  and  it  has  been  for  the  seventeen  years 
that  I  have  been  watching  you. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Let  me  make  a  suggestion.  Have  you  not  a  law 
in  the  State  of  New  York,  as  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  that  where 
oleomargarine  is  used  in  restaurants  and  boarding  houses  there  shall 
be  a  notification  of  the  fact  to  the  guests'?  Have  you  not  such  a  law 
as  that  in  New  York! 

Mr.  KRACKE.  No,  sir;  we  have  not.  The  law  of  the  State  of  New 
York  forbids  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomargarine  to  any  person, 
whether  it  be  in  a  stall  or  restaurant  or  boarding  house.  You  can  not 
even  feed  it  to  your  servant  in  a  private  family. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  let  us  hear  this  gentleman  [Mr. 
AdamsJ  speak. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  say  a  word  if  I  can  have 
permission.  The  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  this  question  have 
appeared  before  this  committee  and  made  very  extended  arguments, 
and  have  been  treated  with  the  utmost  courtesy.  The  questions  which 
we  have  asked  have  been  rare  in  number.  Mr.  Schell  himself  appeared 
before  this  committee  and  talked  for  nearly  a  day  and  a  half.  I  asked 
him  one  or  two  questions  with  the  utmost  politeness.  He  did  not  care 
to  answer  them. 

Now,  a  gentleman  appears  here  with  limited  time,  and  while  the 
representatives  of  the  dairy  interests  are  perfectly  willing  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  any  searching  cross-examination  which  is  reasonable,  we 
do  feel  that  when  one  of  them  appears  here  to  conduct  a  discussion 
upon  our  side  of  the  question  the  six  or  seven  or  eight  attorneys  and 
representatives  of  the  oleomargarine  interests  should  not  take  up  all 
his  time  in  extended  questions  and  in  extended  arguments. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  always  within  the  power  of  the  wit- 
ness to  decline  to  be  interrupted. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  was  just  going  to  say  that.  We  apologize  if  we  are 
doing  what  we  ought  not  to  do. 

Mr.  DILLON.  I  have  just  one  or  two  other  points  to  make,  and  that 
is  all  I  am  going  to  say  on  this  subject. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  decline  to  be  interrupted,  if  you 
wish. 

Mr.  DILLON.  I  will  exercise  that  right  now  for  the  remainder  of 
what  I  have  to  say. 

Up  in  the  country  where  I  was  born  and  brought  up,  and  where  my 
farm  interests  are  yet,  I  frequently  meet  farmers.  It  is  a  section  of 
country  to  which  people  from  New  York  and  Philadelphia  go  in  con- 
siderable numbers  to  spend  the  summer,  and  they  meet  a  good  many 
of  these  dealers  from  New  York  and  adjacent  cities.  Last  summer  when 
I  was  up  there  one  of  my  old  neighbors  was  telling  me  of  a  market 
which  he  had  formerly  had  for  his  dairy  butter  in  Paterson,  N.  J.  He 
lost  the  trade,  and  he  went  down  there  to  see  what  the  trouble  was, 
why  he  could  not  get  any  more  orders  from  those  people  to  whom  he 
had  been  shipping.  He  said  that  they  told  him  confidentially  that  all 
or  many  of  his  competitors  around  there  had  been  selling  oleomargarine ; 
that  they  were  making  a  profit  of  8  or  10  cents  a  pound  on  it;  that  it 
they  handled  dairy  butter  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  compete  with 
these  competitors;  and  consequently  they  had  thrown  out  dairy  butter 
and  gone  to  handling  oleomargarine  entirely. 


378  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Now,  those  people  do  not  undertake  to  come  in  and  sell  this  oleo- 
margarine as  a  "poor  man's  product.'7  We  hear  a  great  deal  about  its 
being  a  poor  man's  product,  about  the  labor  unions,  and  all  that  sort  of 
thing,  but  they  do  not  sell  their  oleomargarine  at  a  price  that  makes  it 
any  advantage  for  a  laboring  man  to  buy  it,  even  if  he  were  willing  to 
be  influenced  by  the  lower  price.  The  object  is,  all  the  time,  to  sell  it 
for  butter,  as  butter,  and  at  butter  prices.  And  it  all  comes  right  back 
again  to  the  fact  that  all  we  ask  is  something  that  will  protect  us  in  our 
legitimate  industry  and  business.  During  the  last  six  months  I  sup- 
pose I  have  received  at  least  an  average  of  1,000  letters  a  day  from  our 
farmers.  I  do  not  say  that  I  have  read  them  all,,  but  I  have  gone 
through  them.  And  all  through  those  letters,  or  frequently  through 
them,  there  are  references  made  to  this  Grout  bill.  Never  in  the  fif- 
teen years  that  I  have  been  in  the  publishing  business  have  I  known 
of  any  questiop  that  created  so  much  interest  among  the  iarmers  as 
this  question  has,  and  they  have  gotten  to  the  point  when— 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Your  farmers  in  New  York  are  largely 
dairymen,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  DILLON.  Well,  there- are  large  dairy  interests  there. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  feed  cattle  to  any  extent? 

Mr.  DILLON.  Not  for  beef;  no,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  what  I  mean. 

Mr.  DILLON.  No;  not  very  much.  But  of  course  I  hear  from  farm- 
ers outside  of  the  State,  and  they  are  very  much  in  earnest  about  this 
bill,  and  they  are  not  asking  anything  unreasonable.  Back  of  all  of 
their  arguments  and  their  talk  is  the  fact  that  they  do  not  want  any- 
thing unreasonable.  They  are  perfectly  willing  that  oleomargarine 
should  stand  on  its  own  merits.  But  they  do  not  want  it  sold  as  but- 
ter. They  do  not  want  to  stand  that  unjust,  dishonest  competition. 

That  is  all  that  we  ask  of  this  committee  and  all  that  we  ask  of  Con- 
gress in  this  matter — to  protect  us,  to  protect  our  trademark.  Let  us 
sell  butter  for  what  it  is,  and  let  them  sell  oleomargarine  for  what  it  is. 
They  can  give  it  any  other  color  they  wish,  so  long  as  they  leave  us 
butter. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  understood  you  to  say,  in  some  part  of  your 
argument,  that  it  was  your  opinion  that  it  could  not  be  sold  white.  Am 
I  correct? 

Mr.  DILLON.  It  is  my  opinion,  sir,  that  there  are  very,  very  few  peo- 
ple who  will  want  to  eat  it  if  they  know  what  it  is.  If  it  is  made  white, 
they  will  probably  know  what  it  is,  and  then  they  will  not  want  it. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Then  you  believe  that  this  act  would  be  entirely 
prohibitive? 

Mr.  DILLON  (after  a  pause).  Well,  we  are  willing  to  let  this  act  work 
out  its  own  course.  We  do  not  ask  its  enactment  for  the  purpose  of 
prohibiting  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine;  but  we  ask  it  simply  as 
the  only  means  that  we  have  been  able  to  devise  to  prevent  the  oleo- 
margarine interests  from  imitating  our  product  and  selling  their  cheap 
product  as  our  genuine  product. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  And  yet  you  admit  that  your  laws  in  New  York 
are  so  thoroughly  enforced  that  only  the  small  amount  of  200,000  pounds 
is  sold  in  your  entire  State  in  one  year? 

Mr.  DILLON.  Well,  only  that  much  that  we  know  about.  The  part 
that  comes  in  that  we  don't  know  about  we  are  unable  to  estimate. 

Mr.  TILLINGJHAST.  There  is  no  oleomargarine  manufactured  that  the 
Government  does  not  know  about. 

Mr.  DILLON.  Still  it  is  manufactured,  and  it  goes  into  other  States. 
How  much  goes  into  New  Jersey?  How  much  goes  into  Ohio?  How 


OLEOMAKGARINK  379 

much  goes  into  Illinois'?  How  much  goes  iiito  the  Southern  States? 
Now,  the  butter  of  all  these  States  which  is  displaced  by  oleomargarine 
comes  into  competition  with  the  New  York  product  just  exactly  the 
same  as  if  the  oleomargarine  itself  were  sold  in  New  York. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  DILLON.  I  say  that  it  is  the  fact,  because  there  is  more  Western 
butter  consumed  in  New  York  City  than  there  is  State  butter. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Then  the  only  interest  that  you  have  in  this  question  is 
the  protection  of  the  New  York  dairy  interest? 

Mr.  DILLON.  The  only  interest  that  I  have  is  to  protect  butter  from 
a  dishonest  competition ;  and  it  is  the  interest  of  the  dairymen  through- 
out this  whole  country  and  throughout  every  State  in  the  Union.  I  do 
not  confine  myself  to  New  York  State  at  all. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  think  the  price  of  butter  would  be  any 
higher  if  oleomargarine  were  out  of  the  way? 

Mr.  DILLON.  I  know  that  there  are  facilities  in  this  country  for  making 
all  the  butter  at  a  reasonable  price  that  is  required,  and  that  question 
does  not  cut  any  figure  here,  anyway,  to  my  mind.  I  believe,  and  I 
know  from  my  familiarity  with  the  farming  and  dairy  sections  of  this 
country,  that  we  could  make  double  the  amount  of  butter  that  is  made 
here  to  day.  But  that  is  not  what  I  am  arguing  about.  I  want  to  con- 
fine myself  right  to  that  one  point.  I  do  not  want  to  have  you  make 
your  inferior  product  to  imitate  mine  and  sell  it  as  mine. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  you  have  no  objection  to  my  selling  it  for 
what  it  is? 

Mr.  DILLON.  Not  at  all;  not  at  all. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  That  is  the  way  three-quarters  of  it  is  sold. 

Mr.  EOYCE.  Well,  we  are  after  the  other  quarter.  Mr.  Chairman,  if 
there  is  any  more  time  now  I  would  just  like  to  occupy  two  or  three 
minutes.  I  will  not  be  much  longer  than  that.  I  have  not  much  to  say, 
in  fact  I  believe  there  is  not  much  to  be  said  on  this  question,  anyway. 

STATEMENT  OF  C.  H.  ROYCE,  ESQ.,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Mr.  EOYOE.  My  name,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  C.  H.  Eoyce.  I  believe  I 
am  a  representative  farmer.  I  was  brought  up  within  a  few  miles  of 
this  gentleman  here  [Mr.  Dillon].  We  went  to  school  together,  and 
while  I  am  a  farmer  now,  he  is  an  editor,  and  that  is  the  only  respect 
in  which  we  differ. 

I  am  engaged  in  making  a  fancy  grade  of  butter ;  a  butter  that  sells 
to  our  customers  for  over  half  a  dollar  a  pound  net  to  us.  And  I  want 
to  say  to  you  right  here  and  now  that  I  believe  that  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter  interferes  with  the  sale  of  our  grade 
of  butter  at  55  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Then  it  is  a  good  thing.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  EOYCE.  That  may  appeal  to  you,  sir;  but  there  are  plenty  of 
men  in  this  country  who  are  perfectly  willing  to  lay  down  that  amount, 
or  more,  for  butter  which  they  consider  to  be  worth  the  price. 

Now,  I  want  to  say  one  thing  that  I  believe  is  true,  and  in  which  I 
think  you  will  agree  with  me,  that  we  have  the  better  right  to  use  the 
yellow  color  for  our  butter  than  have  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers, 
because  if  the  Almighty  had  any  designs  or  plans  in  reference  to  this 
thing  at  all,  it  was  that  a  cow,  given  June  grass,  would  make  a  certain 
color  of  butter,  and  that  that  should  be  her  trade-mark  or  copyright 
forever. 


380  OLEOMAKGAK1NE. 

Now,  as  has  been  said  here  before,  the  only  tiling  that  we  as  pro- 
ducers of  butter  hope  to  do  and  want  to  do  is  to  have  a  law,  which  shall 
be  operative  throughout  the  whole  country,  which  shall  allow  us  to  sell 
our  butter  as  such,  and  prohibit  anybody  from  selling  something  else 
as  butter. 

Now,  the  only  thing  that  these  gentlemen  are  con  tending  for  is  the  color. 
Why  are  they  contending  for  it?  Simply  because  they  know  that  that 
is  the  only  method  whereby  they  may  be  able  to  put  their  product  on 
the  market  as  butter.  If  there  is  an  element  in  this  country  who  want 
to  use  oleomargarine — and  I  am  satisfied  that  there  is;  I  am  not  sure 
that  I  would  not  use  it  if  I  were  in  the  position  of  some  men — if  they 
want  to  use  it  as  such,  we  have  no  objection  to  their  being  allowed  to 
do  it.  If  they  are  satisfied  that  it  is  a  wholesome,  healthful  product, 
let  them  use  it  as  such.  But  let  us  protect  those  who  do  not  want  to 
use  it,  either  as  such  or  as  butter. 

Now,  I  get  around  this  country  quite  a  good  deal — not  so  much  as 
some  men,  but  still  considerably — and  the  question  that  is  asked  me  is 
this :  uHow  are  you  able  to  detect  oleomargarine  that  is  not  marked  F 

In  our  section  of  the  country  there  are  very  few  people  who  want  to 
use  oleomargarine.  They  want  to  use  butter.  And  we  hope,  in  the 
interest  of  our  trade  in  our  own  State,  in  all  the  States  adjoining  it,  and 
in  all  the  States  of  this  country,  and  in  fact  of  the  whole  world,  that 
nobody  will  be  allowed  to  foist  off  on  the  credulous  public  a  product 
which,  while  it  may  be  pure  and  wholesome,  imitates  and  is  sold  for 
our  product. 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  all  I  have  to  say  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a  question! 

Mr.  ROYCE.  Ask  all  the  questions  you  wish. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  would  like  to  have  you  explain  to  the  com- 
mittee, if  you  can,  how  this  bill  would  in  any  sense  protect  you  from 
competition  with  butter  at  50  cents  per  pound? 

Mr.  ROYCE.  Simply  in  this  way,  sir:  I  sell  you  butter  at  50  cents  a 
pound;  the  next  man  to  you  buys  creamery  butter  at  30  cents  a  pound; 
the  next  man  buys  creamery  butter  at  25  cents  a  pound,  and  the  next 
man  buys  oleomargarine  at  15  cents  a  pound.  Now,  if  I  move  away 
the  man  who  is  buying  oleomargarine — that  is,  buying  it  for  butter,  I 
mean 

Mr.  JELKE.  He  buys  it  at  15  cents  a  pound,  you  say? 

Mr.  ROYOE.  Supposing  that  he  does.  If  I  remove  him,  then  the 
man  who  will  conusme  my  butter  is  one  nearer  me,  isn't  he.  Is  not  that 
logical  1 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  how  could  you  remove  that  man  when  there 
is  a  temptation  of  his  getting  50  cents  a  pound  for  his  product  by  pay- 
ing a  10-cent  tax  on  it?  In  other  words,  have  you  any  other  protection 
under  this  bill  than  your  own  State  laws? 

Mr.  ROYCE.  But  we  need  a  law  which  operates  in  other  States  as  our 
law  operates  in  our  State. 

Mr.  TILLINGUAST.  But  this  law  can  not  operate  in  other  States  as 
your  law  does.  You  understand  that,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  ROYCE.  I  think  it  will  have  that  effect,  simply  because  people 
will  not  use  the  stuff  it'  it  is  sold  as  such. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  But  this  law  does  not  have  anything  to  do  with 
that.  This  law  permits  you  to  sell  colored  oleomargarine  just  the  same 
as  before. 

Mr.  ROYCE.  Most  assuredly.  I  agree  to  that,  sir.  I  want  to  say  that 
it  is  my  honest  conviction  that  it  interferes  with  us  only  inasmuch  as  it 
is  sold  for  what  it  is  not — for  our  product. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  381 

Mr.  DILLON.  My  friend,  the  trouble  with  you  is  just  the  trouble  with 
that 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  There  is  no  trouble  with  me. 

Mr.  DILLON.  Well,  then,  the  trouble  with  that  dealer  to  whom  I 
referred  when  I  was  in  the  field.  Now,  you  tempt  the  dealer  by  a  little 
profit  of  8  cents  a  pound  to  violate  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  to  sell  this 
product  for  what  it  is  not.  We  come  in  now  with  this  10-cent  tax,  and 
we  remove  that  temptation  from  the  dealer,  and  then  you  can  not  bribe 
him  in  that  way. 

Mr.  TILLINGKEAST.  Well,  you  would  not  remove  the  temptation  to 
sell  it  as  butter  at  35  and  40  cents  a  pound,  would  you  ? 

Mr.  DILLON.  We  are  talking  about  the  average  product  of  butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  I  think  we  will  take  a  recess 
here  until  the  regular  time. 

(The  committee  thereupon  took  a  recess  until  2.30  o'clock  p.  m.) 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  committee  resumed  its  session. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  state  that  I  have  from 
my  client,  Mr.  Seither,  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  a  list  of  1,083  consumers 
who  buy  direct  from  the  factory.  They  want  to  enter  their  protest  of 
record,  and  he  has  sent  the  names  to  put  in.  There  is  no  use  of  encum- 
bering the  record,  but  I  can  furnish  their  letters,  if  necessary. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  may  condense  it  in  such  form  as  you  want  and 
omit  the  list  of  names. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  will  just  let  a  note  be  taken  of  the  number  of  con- 
sumers who  wish  to  go  on  record' as  opposed  to  this  bill  from  this  one 
particular  locality. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Are  you  ready  to  proceed,  Mr.  Davis! 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  Jelke,  who  represents  one  of  the  Chicago  industries, 
desires  to  be  heard  by  the  committee,  and  suggests  that  perhaps  as 
my  argument  is  to  be  of  a  legal  character  almost  exclusively  the  com- 
mittee might  prefer  to  hear  him  first  and  let  me  follow  him  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  JELKE.  My  address  will  be  short.    It  will  not  take  much  time. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  do  not  think  it  makes  very  much  difference  who 
comes  first.  Just  condense  your  argument  as  much  as  possible. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  will  try  to  do  so.  I  shal*  perhaps  find  it  somewhat 
difficult  to  make  myself  clearly  understood  in  a  matter  that  is  of  vital 
importance  to  me  without  these  memoranda.  I  am  altogether  a  man 
of  detail. 

STATEMENT  OF  JOHN  F.  JELKE,  REPRESENTING  BRAUN  &  FITTS, 

OF  CHICAGO,  ILL. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  may  give  your  name  and  place  of  residence, 
Mr.  Jelke. 

Mr.  JELKE.  John  F.  Jelke,  vice-president  of  Braun  &  Fitts,  Chicago. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  is  their  business? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Manufacturers  of  oleomargarine. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  am  a  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine,  and  represent  a 
lifetime  of  effort  in  building  up  a  business  which  is  in  the  same  line  of 
progress  that  all  other  improvements  and  developments  have  been  that 
have  become  necessary  by  the  increasing  population  of  the  world.  All 
progress,  in  whatever  line,  has  been  stubbornly  fought  and  hindered 
by  individuals  and  associations,  who,  through  selfish  motives,  opposed 
what  ultimately  turned  out  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  large  majority. 
For  instance,  there  was  an  antifast  mail  party  in  England  in  the  time 


382  OLEOMARGARINE. 

of  Charles  the  Second,  and  the  King  and  council  were  petitioned  to 
decree  that  no  public  coach  should  be  permitted  to  have  more  than 
four  horses,  to  start  oftener  than  once  a  week,  nor  to  go  more  than  30 
miles  a  day.  Macaulay's  comments  on  this  historical  record  reads 
like  prophesy.  We  smile  at  these  things  he  said  and  predicted.  It  is 
not  impossible  that  our  descendants  when  they  read  of  the  hostility 
offered  by  cupidity  and  prejudice  to  the  improvements  of  the  nineteenth 
century  may  smile  in  their  turn. 

At  the  outset  let  me  make  myself  thoroughly  understood  on  one 
point,  and  that  is,  I  am  not  here  to  try  in  any  way  to  discourage  legiti- 
mate legislation  nor  any  legislation  that  will  result  in  the  identification 
to  the  consumer  of  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine.  Such  legislation 
will  have  my  hearty  approval  and  moral  support.  But  with  great 
emphasis  I  object  to  class  legislation,  or  legislation  on  any  subject  that 
favors  one  individual  at  the  expense  of  another.  If  the  Grout  bill, 
which  I  am  here  to  oppose,  becomes  a  law,  the  result  will  be  the  abso- 
lute annihilation  of  a  legitimate  industry.  The  object  of  this  bill  is  to 
prohibit  and  exterminate  the  sale  of  oleomargarine,  and  not  to  regulate 
it.  A  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  would  place  oleomargarine  at  an  aver- 
age price  per  pound  over  that  of  the  best  creamery  butter  for  six 
months  in  every  year.  The  Grout  bill  is  urged  by  its  friends  as  a  pro- 
tection to  the  dairy  interests.  It  has  not  been  shown  that  it  is  for  the 
benefit  of  the  large  consuming  class  of  the  country,  nor  what  is  expe- 
dient, nor  what  is  wise  in  the  way  of  legislation  to  protect  the  interests 
ot  the  large  majority  of  the  people  living  under  the  protection  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  reduction  of  tax  on  uncoloi  ed 
oleomargarine  is  only  a  subterfuge,  the  framers  of  the  bill  knowing  in 
their  hearts  that  such  a  product  can  not  be  sold.  The  guise  under 
which  it  attacks  the  oleomargarine  interest  is  that  of  fraud,  and  I  am 
opposed  to  fraud  in  every  shape  whatever.  But  because  one  individual 
may  prefer  his  butter  white  and  another  prefer  his  butter  yellow  it 
does  not  mean  that  the  one  who  prefers  the  yellow  butter  is  defrauded 
when  his  taste  is  catered  to  in  something  that  his  sight  makes  palatable 
in  his  eyes. 

Nothing  can  be  pleasing  to  the  palate  and  satisfactory  to  the  digest- 
ive organs  that  is  not  first  good  to  look  upon.  Nature  has  provided 
harmless  coloring  matters  for  this  purpose,  and,  by  universal  custom,  it 
has  been  deemed  desirable  to  have  a  generally  yellow  tint  to  butter. 
Oleomargarine,  which  in  foreign  countries  is  abbreviated  to  the  word 
u margarine"  (and  which  I  believe  would  be  well  for  this  committee  to 
consider  in  any  legislation  that  might  occur,  inasmuch  as  the  word  "  oleo- 
margarine" has  thirteen  letters  and  superstitious  people  believe  that 
is  the  one  hodoo  that  has  followed  this  business  thus  far),  is  a  natural, 
wholesome,  and  economical  substitute  for  butter  in  every  sense.  I  do 
not  believe  that  a  single  member  of  this  honorable  committee  believes 
that  oleomargarine  is  more  or  less  wholesome  with  or  without  an  infin- 
itesimal amount  of  coloring  matter,  such  as  is  used  by  the  manufac- 
turers of  butter,  nor  that  any  single  ingredient  that  enters  into  the 
production  of  oleomargarine  is  more  or  less  wholesome  than  butter, 
and  particularly  to  what  is  the  average  quality  of  commercial  butter. 
It  has  been  urged  that  the  price  of  butter  has  been  kept  down  by  the 
production  and  sale  of  oleomargarine.  Is  that  a  hardship  to  the  wage 
earner  and  the  consumer  who,  in  the  colder  sections  of  the  United 
States,  require  a  fatty,  heat-producing  food? 

In  the  far  North  of  this  continent  the  Eskimo  consumes  whale 
blubber  and  tallow  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  a  warmth  in  their 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  883 

bodies  to  offset  the  outside  cold.  It  is  not  uncommon  that  a  bride  of 
an  Eskimo  receive  as  a  bridal  present  a  box  of  tallow  candles.  If 
oleomargarine  does  keep  down  the  price  of  butter  why  do  we  not  have 
an  export  outlet  for  a  large  surplus  of  our  butter!  The  development  of 
the  butter  business  of  foreign  countries  is  continually  expanding  and 
growing,  yet  our  exports  are  less  than  before  so  much  oleomargarine 
legislation  was  enacted,  and  within  the  last  two  years  butter  has  been 
returned  from  London  to  New  York  because  the  price  was  higher' in 
the  United  States  than  in  England.  The  United  States — the  greatest 
agricultural  country  on  the  globe — bringing  back  butter  from  England, 
all  on  account  of  the  high  price  in  this  country,  manipulated  by  the 
dairy  union.  If  we  can  not  produce  butter  of  a  quality  and  at  a  price 
that  will  supply  the  demand  of  Europe  with  our  product  is  it  right  to 
urge  any  legislation  that  will  increase  the  price  of  a  necessary  food 
product  to  the  consumers  of  our  own  country? 

If  the  dairy  union  will  look  to  their  own  business  with  the  idea  of 
increasing  the  commercial  greatness  of  the  United  States  they  will 
study  to  improve  the  quality  of  their  butter  and  reduce  the  cost  of 
manufacture  so  they  may  successfully  compete  with  any  country  that 
sends  butter  into  England  or  other  foreign  nations.  Notwithstanding 
the  enormous  sale  of  butter  in  England,  England  is  one  of  the  largest 
consumers  of  margarine.  In  this  connection  I  would  say  that  not  a 
single  country  in  Europe,  not  even  England  with  her  war  expenses,  has 
deemed  it  advisable  to  place  a  tax  on  oleomargarine.  The  United 
States  alone  has  burdened  its  people  with  a  tax  on  a  necessary  food 
product,  the  greatest  burden  of  the  tax  now  imposed  under  the  Federal 
law  now  existing  falling  on  the  retail  dealers. 

It  has  been  urged  by  the  friends  of  the  Grout  bill  that  the  retail 
dealer  is  the  principal  violator  of  the  law  in  selling  oleomargarine.  If 
this  is  so  it  is  because  he  is  abused  and  his  rights  as  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States  unjustly  interfered  with  by  an  outrageous  tax. 

Just  think,  $48  per  annum  for  selling  oleomargarine.  The  tax  on 
food  being  greater  than  on  whisky.  Is  it  not  an  outrage  that  a  little 
corner  grocer  has  to  either  pay  this  exorbitant  tax  or  supply  his  patrons 
with  a  cheap  quality  of  butter  at  a  high  price?  Will  the  increase  of 
the  tax  to  10  cents  per  pound  on  oleomargarine  stop  all  frauds  in  the 
sales  of  butter  and  protect  the  consumer  from  getting  rancid,  impure, 
and  unwholesome  butter  at  high  prices?  Does  the  Dairymen's  Union 
expect  to  increase  the  prestige  of  the  United  States  among  nations  by 
stunting  the  growth  of  the  oleomargarine  industry,  or  do  they  desire  to 
increase  manufactures  and  industries  by  enlarging  the  outlet  for  all 
agricultural  products  of  the  United  States?  Beinember  that  every 
article  entering  into  the  production  of  oleomargarine  originates  and  is 
a  product  of  the  farm. 

We,  as  manufacturers,  have  always  recognized  the  fact  that  oleo- 
margarine in  itself  has  sufficient  merit  to  stand  on  its  own  bottom  for 
what  it  is — a  substitute  for  butter;  but  at  the  same  time  oleomargarine 
must  not  be  robbed  of  one  of  the  ingredients  that  is  absolutely  the  same 
as  is  contained  in  butter,  and  which  adds  the  first  recommendation  to 
its  palatableness — that  of  pleasing  the  sight.  We  have  always  sold  and 
advertised  our  product  and  endeavored  to  educate  the  consumer  to  the 
use  of  our  brands  of  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine,  evidenced  by  the 
statements  of  the  Chicago  daily  papers,  herewith  presented. 

These  statements  are  from  the  leading  Chicago  newspapers.  I  will 
not  weary  you  with  reading  them,  but  I  would  like  to  have  them 
entered  in  the  record.  I  will  simply  call  off  the  names  of  the  news- 


384  OLEOMARGARINE. 

papers :  The  Chicago  Record,  the  Chicago  Daily  News,  the  Inter  Ocean, 
Chicago;  the  Chicago  Tribune,  the  Chicago  Journal,  the  Illinois 
Staats-Zeitung,  Chicago;  the  Chicago  Times-Herald,  the  Chicago 
Evening  Post,  and  the  Chicago  Chronicle.  It  might  be  well  for  me  to 
read  one  of  these. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  might  make  a  brief  statement  as  to 
what  they  contain. 

Mr.  JELKE.  These  statements  all  go  to  show  that  Braun  &  Fitts 
advertise  their  goods  as  oleomargarine  under  their  brand.  They  want 
the  goods  sold  as  oleomargarine  with  their  name  on  them.  We  believe 
that  by  presenting  our  goods  to  the  consumer  we  can  not  only  increase 
our  business,  but  by  our  superior  knowledge  and  by  our  attention  to 
detail  of  manufacture  in  every  way  we  believe  we  can  remain  what  we 
are  now,  the  largest  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United 
States. 

The  above  statements  are  as  follows : 

DECEMBER  19,  1900. 

GENTLEMEN:  Referring  to  your  communication  of  recent  date,  we 
would  say  that  during  the  past  two  years  we  have  published  a  number 
of  advertisements  of  your  oleomargarine  in  the  Chicago  Record  and 
Daily  News.  These  advertisements  have  stated  plainly  that  your  prod- 
uct— Holstein  oleomargarine — is  put  up  in  packages  and  every  pack- 
age is  plainly  marked. 

Very  truly,  yours,  VICTOR  F.  LAWSON. 

Messrs.  BRAUN  &  FITTS, 

187  No.  Union  St.,  Chicago. 


THE  INTER-OCEAN, 
Chicago,  December  18,  1900. 

GENTLEMEN:  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  inquiry  would  say  tliat  you 
have  advertised  with  us  quite  a  little  your  "  oleomargarine."    The  pack- 
ages have  been  plainly  marked  and  the  advertisement  so  specified. 
Tours,  respectfully, 

FREDK.  C.  PIERCE, 

Advertising  Manager. 
Messrs.  BRAUN  &  FITTS,  City. 


THE  CHICAGO  TRIBUNE, 

Chicago,  December  18, 1900. 

To  whom  it  may  concern:  This  is  to  certify  that  Messrs.  Braun  & 
Fitts,  187  j^orth  Union  street,  Chicago,  have  during  the  past  three  or 
four  years  extensively  advertised  their  Holstein  brand  of  oleomargarine 
in  the  Chicago  Tribune,  in  which  the  statement  was  made  that  every 
package  is  plainly  marked. 

Respectfully,  TRIBUNE  COMPANY, 

HUGH  W.  MONTGOMERY, 

Business  Manager. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  385 

CHICAGO  JOURNAL, 
Chicago,  December  19,  1900. 

DEAR  SIRS  :  In  compliance  with  your  request  we  are  pleased  to  state 
that  the  Chicago  Journal  has  been  favored  with  your  business  during 
the  past  tbree  years,  running  your  advertisements  of  Holstein  oleomar- 
garine. The  last  order  was  for  55  lines,  to  be  run  Mondays  and  Wed- 
nesdays, ending  April  30,  1900. 

We  attach  copy  of  your  advertisement  herewith. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

JOSEPH  H.  BOOTH,  Publisher. 
Messrs.  BRAUN  &  FITTS. 

Kutritipus,  delicious,  economical. 
BRAUN  &  FITTS'S 

HOLSTEIN. 
The  only  high  grade 

OLEOMARGARINE. 

Every  package  plainly  marked. 


OFFICE  OF  ILLINOIS  STAATS-ZEITUNG  Co., 

Chicago,  December  19,  1900. 

GENTLEMEN  :  In  reply  to  your  inquiry  we  beg  to  state  that  our  files 
show  that  you  have  advertised  for  some  time  an  article  under  the  name 
of  oleomargarine,  and  further  that  the  advertisement  stated  every 
package  was  plainly  marked  as  such. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

ILLINOIS  STAATS  ZEITUNG  Co., 
E.  G.  WALLE,  Receiver. 
By  PHIL  H.  DILG,  Manager. 
Messrs.  BRAUN  &  FITTS,  Chicago. 


THE  CHICAGO  TIMES-HERALD, 

Chicago,  December  19,  1900. 

GENTLEMEN  :  At  your  request  we  are  pleased  to  certify  that  you 
have  published  your  Holstein  brand  as  "oleomargarine"  in  the  col- 
umns of  the  Times- Herald. 

Yours,  very  truly,  GRANT  PIERCE, 

Business  Manager. 
Messrs.  BRAUN  &  FITTS,  Chicago. 


THE  CHICAGO  EVENING  POST, 

Chicago,  December  19,  1900. 

GENTLEMEN  :  At  your  request  we  are  pleased  to  certify  that  you 
have  published  your  Holstein  brand  as  "oleomargarine"  in  the  columns 
of  the  Post. 

Yours,  very  truly,  GERALD  PIERCE, 

.Business  Manager. 
MESSRS.  BRAUN  &  FITTS,  Chicago,  III. 

S.  Rep.  2043 25 


386  OLEOMARGARINE. 

THE  CHICAGO  CHRONICLE, 

Chicago,  December  19*  1900. 
To  whom  it  may  concern: 

Messrs.  Braun  &  Fitts,  of  Chicago,  man ufacturers  of  high  grade  oleo- 
margarine, have  advertised  their  product  excensively  in  the  Chronicle 
for  several  years.  Be  it  said  to  their  credit  and  honor  that  they  have 
advertised  the  exact  article  which  they  manufacture,  under  its  proper 
name.  There  has  been  no  deception  in  their  advertising,  and  they 
have  given  the  public  exactly  what  they  claimed  to  do  in  their  adver- 
tising, so  that  anyone  buying  their  advertised  product  did  so  with  the 
full  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  goods  he  would  receive. 
Yours,  truly, 

H.  W.  SEYMOUR,  Publisher. 
LESTER  L.  JONES,  Business  Manager. 


Mr.  JELKE.  In  connection  herewith  we  present  some  of  our  printed 
wrappers,  which  go  direct  to  the  consumer  wrapped  around  the  oleo- 
margarine. The  word  "  Oleomargarine  "  is  conspicuously  placed,  and 
I  will  say  that  the  sale  of  our  Holstein  brand  would  make  probably 
25  per  cent  of  our  entire  business. 

The  wrapper  referred  to,  which  was  handed  to  members  of  the  com- 
mittee for  examination,  is  as  follows : 

BRAUN  &  FITTS, 

the  only  high  grade 

HOLSTEIN. 

Trade-mark. 

OLE  OM  ARGARINE . 

Mr.  JELKE.  We  also  put  up  many  other  brands.  Here  is  one  that 
we  put  up  for  one  of  the  retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine. 

The  wrapper  above  referred  to,  which  was  handed  to  members  of  the 
committee  for  examination,  is  as  follows : 

W.  G.  PUTNAM'S 
888-824  South  Adams  St. 

"  PEERLESS." 
Strictly  High  Grade. 

CHURNED   BY   BRAUN   &   FITTS. 

OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  reason  the  ink  is  put  on  in  this  manner  is  because 
it  is  almost  impossible— Mr.  Knight  will  understand  this— to  get  these 
inks  that  will  not  blur  if  they  are  put  on  in  a  heavier  way;  and  when 
it  is  wrapped  around  the  butter  it  brings  out  these  points  very  promi- 
nently. This  parchment  paper  does  not  take  the  ink  well. 

We  put  up  very  many  brands  similarly  branded  with  the  word 
"Oleomargarine"  in  as  large  type  as  the  largest  letter  on  the  brand, 
and,  as  a  rule,  not  less  than  a  one-half  inch  letter.  The  reason  we  do 
not  put  up  all  our  goods  in  the  same  manner  is  because  many  of  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  387 

retailers  object  to  advertising  a  manufacturer,  and  it  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary, according  to  the  internal-revenue  regulations,  that  the  manufac- 
turer put  his  name  on  in  connection  with  the  word  oleomargarine  in 
connection  with  any  wrapper  he  uses.  Some  of  the  retailers  object. 
Then,  again,  in  certain  sections  of  the  country  people  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  buying  their  butter  or  oleomargarine  in  cloth,  and  if  we  put 
the  ink  on  the  cloth  it  goes  through  and  stains  the  butter. 

The  honorable  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  George  W.  Wilson 
(now  deceased),  plainly  stated  before  the  House  Agricultural  Commit- 
tee that  in  his  judgment  not  5  per  cent  of  the  oleomargarine  manufac- 
tured is  illegally  sold,  and  I  believe  his  statements  were  made  accord- 
ing to  the  facts  in  the  caser^  Gentlemen,  can  this  be  said  of  butter,  or 
of  vinegar,  spices,  baking  powder,  and  one  hundred  other  food  products, 
all  of  which  are  not  only  mixed  and  adulterated,  but  in  a  harnilnl  man- 
ner I  Butter,  for  instance,  as  shown  by  patents  in  the  United  States 
Patent  Office,  is  not  only  adulterated  with  harmless  ingredients,  but 
with  poisonous  ingredients.  I  would  herewith  call  attention  to  some  of 
the  patents  that  have  been  issued  by  the  United  States  Patent  Office 
on  the  subject  of  improvement  in  the  manufacture  of  butter,  in  the 
process  of  treating  butter,  in  the  process  of  making  butter,  and  for 
increasing  the  yield  of  butter  from  milk. 

I  will  not  take  the  time  of  the  committee  in  reading  the  full  speci- 
fications. I  will  simply  submit  them  and  call  attention  to  a  few  little 
remarks  like  that  that  I  have  penciled. 

Senator  ALLEN.  "What  is  the  substance?  You  have  one  of  them 
there.  What  patent  is  that? 

Mr.  JELKE.  That  is  a  specification  of  a  process  of  treating  butter — 
Letters  Patent  JSo.  505137,  dated  September  19,  1893. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  is  the  process  of  treatment? 

Mr.  JELKE.  This  is  one  of  the  improvements.  I  will  read  it  and  the 
others. 

3.  The  process  of  improving  butter  which  consists  in  removing  the  solid  impuri- 
ties therefrom  and  treating  the  residue  with  an  air  blast,  an  alkaline  solution,  and 
then  washing  in  pure  water  aided  by  an  air  blast,  maintaining  the  mixture  in  a 
liquid  state  by  heat  during  the  operation,  substantially  as  set  forth. 

[Process  of  treating  butter.    Specification  forming  part  of  Letters  Patent  No.  327636,  dated  October  6, 
1885.    Application  filed  August  17, 1885.    Serial  No.  174671.    No  specimens.] 

To  each  gallon  of  milk  used  I  add  certain  ingredients,  in  about  the  proportions 
named,  as  follows :  One  gallon  of  milk,  1  teaspoonful  of  white  wine  rennet,  1  teaspoon- 
ful  of  sugar,  1  teaspoonful  of  salt,  one-fourth  teaspoonful  bicarbonate  of  soda,  5 
grains  of  bicarbonate  potassium,  10  grains  of  alum,  4  pounds  of  good  butter.  These 
ingredients,  in  about  the  proportions  herein  stated,  are  placed  in  a  churn  of  any  usual 
or  desired  construction,  and  agitated  in  the  usual  manner,  and  the  butter  will  be 
produced  in  much  less  time  than  usual,  and  all  the  solid  matter  withdrawn  from  the 
fluid,  leaving  only  a  thin  water  as  a  residue. 

[Process  of  making  butter.    Specification  forming  part  of  Letters  Patent  No.  335084,  dated  January 
26, 1886.    Application  filed  August  5,  1885.     Serial  No.  173674.    No  specimens.] 

1.  An  improvement  in  the  art  of  making  butter,  which  consists  in  mixing  1  gallon 
of  sweet  milk  with  1  ounce  of  liquid  rennet.  25  grains  (troy)  of  nitrate  of  potash, 
1  ounce  granulated  sugar,  half  fceaspoonful  of  butter  coloring,  and  8  pounds  of  but- 
ter, churned  together  and  worked,  in  the  manner  substantially  as  described. 

[Improvement  in  the  manufacture  of  butter.     Specification  forming  part  of  Letters  Patent  No.  70417, 
dated  November  5,  1867;  antedated  October  29,  1867.] 

To  1  gallon  of  sweet  milk  is  added  8  pounds  (avoirdupois)  of  butter,  1  ounce  of 
loaf  sugar,  20  grains  (troy)  of  nitrate  of  potash,  1  fluid  ounce  of  liquid  rennet,  and 
10  grains  (troy)  of  annetto.  These  are  mixed  and  churned  together  in  the  same 
manner  as  cream  in  the  common  process  of  making  butter.  After  the  butter  is  sepa- 
rated from  the  milk  by  the  process  of  churning,  it  is  gathered  and  worked  in  the 
usual  manner.  The  chemicals  and  butter  added  to  the  milk  cause  a  speedy  separa- 


388  OLEOMARGAKINE. 

tion  of  the  butter  globules  from  it,  causing  it  to  yield  all  or  nearly  all  that  it  contains, 
and  producing  an  article  of  good  quality  and  flavor.  The  annetto  simply  gives  the 
butter  a  yellowish  color,  and  having  heretofore  been  used  for  a  similar  purpose  no 
claim  is  made  to  it  separately  considered. 

[Process  of  treating  butter.    Specification  forming  part  of  Letters  Patent  No.  253820,  dated  February 
14,  1882.     Application  filed  November  17,  1881.    No  specimens.] 

We  take,  say,  about  100  pounds  of  rancid  butter  and  melt  it  in  a  suitable  vessel. 
To  this  we  add  about  30  pounds  of  vegetable  oil,  preferably  the  crude  or  the  re  lined 
cotton-seed  oil,  for  "cutting"  the  butter  and  to  facilitate  nitration,  and  after  being 
thoroughly  stirred  the  mixture  is  filtered  through  boneblack  or  animal  charcoal. 
After  filtration  the  mixture  is  run  off  into  a  settling  tank  and  allowed  to  cool,  bin 
still  in  a  liquid  state,  when  the  coloring  matter  is  added,  and  about  20  pounds  of 
fresh,  sweet,  and  finely  flavored  dairy  butter  added  to  the  mixture  for  the  purpose 
of  flavoring  the  same.  After  the  mixture  has  been  colored  and  flavored  as  descri  bed, 
broken  ice  is  put  into  the  tank  with  the  mixture  and  all  stirred  together,  and  when 
partly  congealed  salt  is  added  to  suit  the  taste.  When  in  a  proper  condition  for 
packing  and  storing,  the  butter  is  transferred  to  suitable  vessels  of  the  desired 
sixes,  and  is  then  ready  for  sale,  transportation,  and  use,  and  will  stand  any  and  all 
changes  of  climate  without  deterioration  in  quality. 

[Compound  for  increasing  the  yield  of  butter  from  milk.  Specification  forming  part  of  Letters  Patent 
No.  489775,  dated  January  10,  1893.  Application  filed  June  7,  1892.  Serial  No.  435915.  No  speci- 
mens.] 

The  compound  consists  of  the  following  ingredients :  Sixty  grains  of  pepsin,  125 
grains  of  pulverized  gum  arable,  3£  ounces  of  powdered  alum.  These  ingredients 
are  thoroughly  mixed  and  kept  tightly  stopped  in  a  bottle,  to  be  used  before  the 
milk  is  churned.  The  ingredients  when  mixed  in  the  above  proportions  are  mixed 
with  the  milk  before  it  is  churned,  about  from  1  to  3  teaspoonfuls  to  a  quart  of 
milk,  according  to  the  richness  of  the  milk. 

The  alum  sours  the  milk,  the  pepsin  digests  or  separates  the  cream  globules  from 
the  rnilk,  and  the  gum  arabic  collects  the  globules  and  causes  them  to  stick  together. 

By  mixing  the  above  compound  with  milk  before  it  is  churned  the  yield  of  butter 
therefrom  is  greatly  increased  and  the  churning  thereof  facilitated. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Are  those  patents  in  use,  or  are  they  simply 
patents  ? 

Mr.  JELKE.  These  are  patents,  and  the  first  one  I  read  is,  I  under- 
stand, the  process  under  which  most  process  butter,  this  impure  butter 
that  has  been  discussed  before  the  committee,  is  handled.  In  connec- 
tion with  that  it  would  be  well,  according  to  my  standpoint  as  an  oleo 
manufacturer  as  well  as  an  experienced  dealer  in  butter,  that  processes 
for  the  manipulation  of  butter  should  be  investigated  before  any  legis- 
lation is  enacted. 

Oleomargarine  has  been  for  the  last  fourteen  years  the  subject  of 
the  most  careful  scrutiny  and  inspection  on  the  part  of  the  Intemal- 
Eevenue  Department  of  the  United  States.  Before  passing  an  opinion 
on  the  merits  of  the  Grout  bill,  would  it  not  be  desirable  to  inform  the 
public  on  the  so-called  processes  for  treating  butter,  and  call  for  an  inves- 
tigation by  your  servants  (the  Internal-Kevenue  Department)  as  to  the 
manner  and  method  of  treating  so-called  pure  butter?  I  know  posi- 
tively that  the  developments  would  be  such  as  would  astound  the  pub 
lie;  that  the  most  rancid,  impure,  and  unwholesome  butter  is  rechuriu-d, 
revamped,  and  made  into  a  presentable  article  by  the  use  of  chemicals 
and  drugs  of  various  kinds,  some  of  which  are  absolutely  poisouou>, 
and  that  the  principal  backers  of  the  Grout  bill  are  the  makers  of  this 
vile  concoction  known  as  process  or  reboiled  butter.  The  creamery 
men  and  makers  of  pure  butter  in  the  United  States  have  nothing  to 
fear.  It  is  only  the  speculators  and  manipulators  of  the  rancid  butter 
that  is  unfit  for  food  who  have  anything  to  cover  up.  Why  would  it 
not  be  to  the  interest  of  the  consumer,  as  well  as  to  the  interest  of  the 
maker  of  pure  putter,  to  impose  a  tax  on  all  butter  that  was  artificially 
colored  after  leaving  the  farm,  or  all  butter  colored  with  inythl,  orange, 
or  coal  tar  derivatives  ? 


OLEOMAEGABINE.  389 

I  desire  to  call  attention  to  some  of  the  proceedings  during  the  con- 
sideration of  the  present  internal-revenue  regulation  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States.  This  is  from  Mr.  Ingalls: 

Mr.  INGALLS.  I  hold  in  my  band  a  vial  of  "Wells,  Richardson  &  Co.'s  perfected 
butter  color,"  which,  the  envelope  assures  us,  "  gives  to  white  butter  a  beautiful 
dandelion  color;  price,  25  cents,"  and,  as  a  commentary  on  the  suggestions  made  by 
the  Senator  from  Vermont  this  afternoon  that  this  bill  was  intended  to  prevent  one 
man  from  cheating  another,  I  will  state  that  this  preparation  pretends  to  be  manu- 
factured by  "Wells,  Kichardson  &  Co.,  proprietors,  Burlington,  Vt."  [Laughter.] 

Open  this  end. 
_   Keep  the 

bottle 

in  this  box  at  all  times 
to  protect  from 

the 
action  of  the  light — 

says  the  label.  This  vial,  so  the  manufacturers  assure  us,  put  up  in  Burlington,  Vt. 
[laughter] ,  for  dairy  purposes,  is — 

Warranted  to  color 

300  Ibs. 
winter  butter. 

"In  using  our  perfected  butter  color  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  no  two  dairies 
will  often  require  the  same  amount  of  color.  Cows  fed  on  poor  hay.  and  kept  with 
only  ordinary  care,  will  make  whiter  butter  than  when  well  cared  for  and  fed  on 
tine  hay  and  grain ;  also  young  cows  give  less  color  than  old. 

"  Different  seasons  also  make  much  difference.  Care  should  be  taken,"  say  these 
friends  of  the  dairymen,  "to  get  just  the  right  amount,  and  never  overcolor. 

"Coloring  butter  nicely  is  an  art,  and  one  must  expect  to  learn  something  by 
practice  and  experience.  Caution !" — In  large  letters  with  an  interjection  point  after 
it — "This  preparation  is  made  by  a  process  entirely  new  and  original  with  us.  No 
other  process  can  produce  so  pure  and  harmless  nor  so  uniform  and  reliable  a  color, 
:md  consumers  should  be  careful  to  use  only  the  genuine,  which  is  always  put  up  in 
bottles,  and  each  bottle  in  a  box  bearing  our  dandelion  trade-mark.  Beware  of  prep- 
arations sold  in  bulk  or  under  similar  names,  for  you  will  find  them  but  poor 
imitations." 

This  is  somewhat  protracted,  but  the  advice  to  the  dairymen  of  America  is  so 
important  and  they  have  been  presented  in  the  light  of  a  long-suffering  class  of 
afflicted  people,  engaged  in  their  bucolic  honesty  in  Vermont  and  elsewhere  in  a 
struggle  with  the  herculean  efforts  of  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  to  put  a 
spurious  article  on  the  market,  that  I  feel  that  perhaps  the  Senate  will  bear  with 
me,  and  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  also,  while  1  continue  to  give  the  country 
information  as  to  the  methods  in  which  butter  color  is  prepared  and  the  purposes 
for  which  it  is  employed. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  I  shall  be  delighted. 

Mr.  INGALLS.  "We  take  pleasure  in  offering  to  the  dairymen  of  America" — not  to 
the  oleomargarine  men — "this  preparation  as  the  perfect  result  of  our  long-con- 
tinued experiments  in  the  preparation  of  an  artificial  color  for  their  use.  In  our 
perfected  butter  color  we  have  succeeded  in  combining  the  same  bright-yellow  color- 
ing principle  found  in  the  dandelion  blossom  with  our  previously  well-known 
; Golden  Extract '"— 

Now  notice  this — 

"  thereby  securing  a  bright  golden  tint  so  exactly  like  the  highest  grade  of  Jersey 
butter  that  no  expert  can  detect  it  [laughter],  even  by  actual  comparison  of  the 
artificial  color  with  the  natural. 

"  We  claim  for  it  every  point  wanted  in  a  perfect  butter  color,  namely : 

' '  First.  Perfect  color.  The  butter  never  turns  to  a  reddish  tinge,  but  always  keeps 
the  bright  golden  color. 

' '  Second .  Perfect  freedom  from  any  taste  or  smell  that  can  be  imparted  to  the  butter. 

"Third.  Perfect  keeping  qualities.  It  does  not  mold,  sour,  or  spoil  in  any  way. 
Heat  or  cold  have  no  effect  on  it." 

It  is  apparently  one  of  the  unchangeable  elements  of  nature — 

"It  has  a  decided  tendency  to  preserve  butter,  whereas  butter  colored  with  car- 
rots, annatto,  etc.,  will  often  spoil "- 

Notwithstanding  the  statement  of  the  Senator  from  New  York,  who  is  supposed 
to  be  an  expert  in  these  matters — 
"will  often  spoil  or  turn  to  a  dull  reddish  tint. 

"Fourth — 


390  OLEOMARGARINE. 

And  here  comes  the  nut  of  this  whole  matter.  The  Senate  is  now  about  to  learn 
\\liy  this  butter  color  is  used,  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  employed,  the  reasons  why 
it  is  put  onto  the  market,  and  why  these  innocent,  unsophisticated  countrymen  in 
the  valleys  of  the  streams  of  New  England,  that  have  no  knowledge  whatever  oi 
the  plmnet,  whose  products  have  become  synonymous  with  purity  and  excellence — 
why  it  is  that  manufactories  turn  out  barrels  of  butter  color,  and  why  it  is,  as  the 
Senator  from  New  York  says,  "  from  time  immemorial,  so  long  that  the  memory  of 
man  runneth  not  back  to  the  contrary,"  the  innocent  dairyman  has  colored  his  butter. 

lt  Fourth.  Perfect  economy  in  use.  It  requires  no  labor,  as  it  is  a  fluid  that  is  put 
in  with  the  cream  in  the  churn.  It  is  cheaper  than  any  other  coloring,  being  put 
up  in  three  sizes,  selling  at  25  cents,  50  cents,  and  $1  each,  which  color,  respectively, 
300,  750,  and  2,000  pounds  of  butter." 

I  almost  hesitate  to  read  the  last  paragraph: 

"  We  warrant  it  to  add  at  least  5  cents  per  pound  to  the  value  of  white  butter,  a 
return  of  $1  for  every  cent  it  costs." 

In  connection  with  this,  I  can  say  that  I  recommend  Wells,  Richard- 
son &  Oo.'s  butter  color  as  a  first-class  color. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  thought  so. 

Mr.  JELKE.  It  is  a.  very  good  color. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  is  the  composition  of  the  color  ? 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  do  not  know ;  but  if  you  desire,  I  can  write  to  Wells, 
Eichardson  &  Co.  for  it. 

Senator  HEITJFELD.  I  do  not  think  they  will  give  it  away. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  did  not  know  but  that  it  had  been  analyzed  and 
that  you  had  the  analysis. 

Mr.  JELKE.  No;  we  have  never  had  it  analyzed.  Wells,  Richardson 
&  Co.  are  a  reliable  firm,  and  they  guarantee  the  color  to  be  pure  and 
harmless.  I  think  probably  the  chairman  will  bear  me  out  in  the  fact 
that  Wells,  Richardson  &  Co.  are  a  reputable  concern. 

There  is  a  sincere  need  for  legislation  against  process,  renovated,  and 
boiled  butter. 

The  reports  of  the  Internal-Revenue  Department  will  show  that  by 
far  the  largest  number  of  complaints  made  by  consumers  have  been  on 
samples  of  so-called  pure  butter  that  they  were  deceived  into  buying, 
believing  it  to  be  fresh-made  creamery  butter,  which  was  in  reality 
nothing  more  than  this  remixed  stuff.  I  repeat,  have  the  Internal- 
Revenue  Department  investigate  the  dairy  and  process  butter  manufac- 
turers before  deciding  on  what  is  best,  most  wise,  and  expedient  in  this 
legislation.  The  Grout  bill  is  cleverly  drawn.  It  purports  to  increase 
the  tax  on  the  well  known  commercial  oleomargarine  to  10  cents  per 
pound,  and  at  the  same  time  the  promoters  of  this  legislation  say  that 
3li  States  prohibit  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine.  Yet  the  bill  also 
provides  that  colored  oleomargarine  becomes  amenable  to  the  State 
law  as  soon  as  it  crosses  the  boundary  of  those  States.  How  many 
States  do  the  butter  dealers  expect  us  to  sell  colored  oleomargarine  in! 
If  they  believe  we  can  sell  uucolored  oleomargarine,  give  us  just  one 
year  to  try,  by  reducing  the  tax  on  uncolored  oleomargarine  to  one- 
fourth  of  a  cent  per  pound,  as  proposed  in  the  Grout  bill,  leaving  the 
tax  on  colored  oleomargarine  at  2  cents  per  pound. 

If  you  pass  the  Grout  bill  to  more  effectually  identify  the  goods  to 
the  consumer,  add  to  it  the  provisions  of  the  Wadsworth  bill,  viz: 

Provided,  That  when  such  packages  are  packed  in  prints,  bricks,  rolls,  or  lumps, 
the  word  " Oleomargarine"  shall  be  impressed  in  sunken  letters,  the  size  to  be  pre- 
scribed by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  and  approved  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  on  all  prints,  bricks,  rolls,  and  lumps  so  packed. 

We  want  our  goods  known  to  the  purchaser,  but  rechristen  the  child 
and  call  the  goods  margarine. 

Then  your  committee,  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  can  plainly  see  what  the  advantage  is  in  having 


OLEOMARGARINE.  391 

an  article  pleasing  to  the  sight.  By  increasing  the  sale  of  uncolored 
oleomargarine  the  farmer  loses  nothing,  because  he  stands  his  share  of 
the  burdensome  tax  that  is  now  imposed.  He  gets  that  much  less  for 
the  products  that  enter  into  the  production  of  oleomargarine. 

Ex  President  Cleveland,  in  August,  1886,  stated  in  his  message  to 
Congress : 

It  has  been  urged  that  while  purporting  to  be  legislation  for  revenue  its  real 
purpose  is  to  destroy,  by  the  use  of  the  taxing  power,  one  industry  of  our  people 
for  the  protection  and  benefit  of  another.  If  entitled  to  indulge  in  such  a  suspicion 
as  a  basis  of  official  action  in  this  case,  and  if  entirely  satisfied  that  the  conse- 
quences indicated  would  ens ueyir  should  doubtless  feel  constrained  to  interpose 
Executive  dissent. 

This  was  on  a  tax  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  commercial  oleomargarine, 
and  if  such  a  levy  imposed  raised  a  question  of  class  legislation,  what 
about  a  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  f  If  it  is  fair  to  crush  our  industry, 
if  it  is  fair  to  the  population  of  this  country  to  deprive  them  of  what 
they  want,  if  it  is  fair  to  enhance  the  price  of  butter  in  favor  of  the 
butter  speculators  at  the  expense  of  those  in  ordinary  circumstances, 
then  it  is  right  to  pass  this  bill;  but  I  believe  if  the  Grout  bill  becomes 
a  law  the  day  will  come  when  every  man  who  goes  on  record  in  this 
legislation  as  favoring  this  destructive  measure  will  be  called  upon  to 
express  themselves  in  further  legislation  of  the  same  character,  viz,  to 
relegate  to  the  States  their  police  power,  and  to  tax  one  class  at  the 
expense  of  another.  I  would  suggest  that  a  commission  be  appointed, 
made  up  of  experienced  business  men,  together  with  officers  of  the 
Internal-Revenue  Department,  together  with  representatives  of  organ- 
ized labor,  to  frame  a  law  that  will  identify  oleomargarine  to  the  con- 
sumer; at  the  same  time  investigate  the  butter  maker,  particularly  the 
process-butter  maker,  and  have  a  bill  introduced  in  the  next  session  of 
Congress,  and  it  will  have  our  hearty  approval  and  support. 

Anything  to  identify  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine.  Protect  the 
consumer,  but  do  not  rob  oleomargarine  of  one  of  its  first  qualities. 

Senator  PROCTOR.  What  was  your  extract  from  President  Cleve- 
land. Was  it  a  veto  message! 

Mr.  JELKE.  No,  sir :  it  was  when  he  signed  the  bill.  He  did  not  veto 
the  bill. 

Senator  PROCTOR.  But  sent  a  special  message1? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PROCTOR.  I  notice  that  you  do  not  all  pronounce  this  word 
the  same.  How  is  it  pronounced? 

Mr.  JELKE.  In  Europe,  it  is  everywhere  called  "margarine,"  with 
the  hard  "g.w  In  Germany  I  have  been  in  the  principal  factories,  and 
in  Holland;  and,  by  the  way,  in  both  Germany  and  Holland  there  are 
single  manufacturers  who  produce  as  much  oleomargarine  as  all  the 
manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United  States. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  standard  dictionaries  give  it  as  "oleomar- 
garine," with  the  hard  "g." 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Is  the  number  of  oleomargarine  factories  increas- 
ing in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Yes,  sir;  they  have  been  increasing  recently.  In  Ger- 
many they  have  increased  to  a  wonderful  extent.  In  fact,  in  the  old 
city  of  Nuremberg  there  are  two  margarine  factories.  I  visited  one 
of  them. 

Gentlemen,  I  thank  you  very  much  for  your  attention. 


392  OLEOMARGARINE. 


STATEMENT  OF  ME.  HENRY  E.  DAVIS. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  would 
not  have  troubled  you  with  appearing  before  you  were  it  not  that  my 
relation  to  this  question  is  peculiar,  growing  out  of  the  fact  that  1  rep- 
resent the  only  concern  engaged  in  this  industry  or  interested  in  it  over 
which  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  direct  and  exclusive  juris- 
diction. There  is  no  oleomargarine  factory  in  any  Territory  of  the  United 
States.  There  is  an  oleomargarine  factory  in  process  of  erection  here 
by  the  Standard  Butterine  Company,  which  is  a  company  organized 
with  a  capital  of  $1,000,000  and  which  has  started  the  erection  of  a 
building  to  cost  $300,000,  which,  if  it  goes  into  operation,  will  employ 
several  hundred  persons,  who  it  is  estimated  will  have  depending  upon 
them,  including  themselves,  a  population  of  1,500  people  right  in  the 
District  of  Columbia,  within  the  shadow  of  this  Capitol — almost  within 
the  shadow,  and  surely  within  sight  of  the  Capitol. 

In  presenting  the  interests  of  this  concern  to  your  attention,  it  will 
of  course  be  necessary  for  me  to  say  something  a  little  outside  of  the 
special  establishment  itself,  but  I  have  read  with  a  great  deal  of  care 
and  interest  the  entire  proceedings  before  the  House  Committee  on 
Agriculture,  and  I  have  also  read  so  much  of  the  proceedings  before 
this  committee  as  have  been  accessible  to  me,  including  the  very  able 
and  thorough  argument  of  Judge  Springer.  As  a  result,  I  will  spare 
the  committee  a  great  deal  that  I  had  intended  to  say,  because  the 
ground  has  been  to  an  extent  occupied  before  me.  But  there  are  cer- 
tain considerations  that  I  have  failed  to  observe  as  having  been  brought 
to  the  attention  of  the  committee,  and  it  is  to  get  these  before  the  com- 
mittee principally  that  I  have  asked  this  privilege. 

This  bill,  as  you  know  quite  by  heart,  is  entitled  "A  bill  to  make 
oleomargarine  and  other  imitation  dairy  products  subject  to  the  laws 
of  the  State  or  Territory  in  which  they  are  transported,  and  to  change 
the  tax  on  oleomargarine." 

The  first  section  of  the  bill  provides  that  when  oleomargarine  or  any 
similar  product  shall  arrive  in  a  State  from  another  it  shall  be  subject 
to  the  police  power  of  the  State  in  which  it  arrives,  just  as  any  other 
similar  product  within  the  State  itself,  with  a  proviso,  to  the  pecul- 
iarity of  which  I  wish  to  ask  your  attention — 

that  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  permit  any  State  to  forbid  the  manu- 
facture or  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  a  separate  and  distinct  form  and  in  such  manner 
as  will  apprise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  free  from  coloration  or  ingredi- 
ent that  causes  it  to  look  like  butter. 

I  shall  presently  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  that  proviso  by 
implication  authorizes  every  State  in  this  Union  to  forbid  the  sale  of 
colored  oleomargarine,  even  though  the  color  be  due  to  an  ingredient 
of  the  oleomargarine,  which  in  the  case  of  cotton-seed  oil  is  unavoida- 
ble. The  next  section  of  the  act  simply  provides  for  a  change  in  the 
tax  as  to  oleomargarine,  making  it  one-fourth  of  a  cent  per  pound  when 
the  same  is  not  colored,  and  when  it  is  colored  then  it  is  to  pay  10  cents. 

I  submit,  gentlemen,  that  the  first  section  of  this  bill  can  not  be 
defended  upon  the  ground  that  it  intends  to  submit  oleomargarine  to 
the  taxing  powers  of  the  States  for  revenue  purposes,  for  it  is  not  open 
to  argument  that  a  State  has  such  power  as  to  an  article  of  interstate 
commerce.  The  only  taxing  power  which  a  State  has  as  to  such  arti- 
cles— that  is,  articles  of  interstate  commerce — is  to  make  laws  impos- 
ing taxes  to  the  extent  of  what  may  be  absolutely  necessary  for 
executing  its  inspection  laws;  and  even  as  to  those,  the  net  profits  of 


OLEOMARGARINE.  393 

all  duties  and  imposts  laid  by  any  State  on  exports  or  imports  shall  be 
for  the  use  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  all  such  laws 
shall  be  subject  to  the  revision  and  control  of  Congress.  That  is  a 
provision  of  the  eighth  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

So  that  it  would  uselessly  consume  your  time  and  waste  words  to  add 
to  the  statement  that  a  State  has  no  power  of  taxation  upon  any  arti- 
cle of  interstate  commerce,  except  such  as  is  involved  in  an  inspection, 
and  the  net  proceeds  of  all  taxes  laid  for  such  purposes  belong  to  the 
United  States. 

The  section  can  not  be  defended  upon  that  ground,  nor  can  it  be 
defended  upon  the  ground  that  it  involves  a  delegation  by  Congress  to 
the  States  of  any  portion  of  the  police  power,  for  a  double  reason.  In 
the  first  place,  if  Congress  has  the  police  power,  it  can  not  delegate  it, 
and,  in  the  second  place,  it  has  no  police  power  as  respects  the  States. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question  there. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Did  not  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Iowa  liquor  cases 
hold  that  Congress  could  delegate  the  power? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  coming  to  that,  Senator.  I  have  that  in  mind  and 
I  want  to  point  out  what  seems  to  have  been  overlooked  in  all  this  dis- 
cussion as  to  that  very  question.  I  say,  in  the  first  place,  Congress 
can  not  delegate  any  power,  and  in  those  cases  to  which  you  refer,  and 
which  I  will  come  to  presently,  the  court  vindicates  its  conclusions  by 
a  distinct  declaration  that  the  act  of  Congress  does  not  involve  such  a 
delegation,  as  I  will  show  you. 

This  first  reason — that  is,  that  Congress  can  not  delegate  the  police 
power,  assuming  it  to  have  it— is  aptly  illustrated  by  the  cases  cited  by 
Mr.  Justice  Shiras  iij  his  dissenting  opinion,  concurred  in  by  Chief 
Justice  Fuller  and  Justice  McKenna,  in  the  case  of  Vance  v.  W.  A. 
Vandercook  Company,  No.  1,  in  170  U.  S.,  438,  and  notably  in  the  case 
of  Stoutenburgh  v.  Henning,  which  is  in  129  U.  S.,  141. 

That  case  came  up  from  the  District  of  Columbia  and  involved  this 
proposition.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  this  same  eighth 
article,  gives  Congress  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  such  territory  as 
should  be  selected  for  the  seat  of  government,  that  is  to  say,  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  and  Congress  enacted  a  law  creating  a  Territorial 
form  of  government,  providing  for  a  legislature  and  giving  the  legisla 
ture  general  legislative  powers.  The  Supreme  Court  said  that  a  certain 
law  of  the  local  legislature,  although  it  was  within  the  grant  of  Con- 
gress, according  to  the  language  of  the  act  of  Congress,  was  void, 
because  Congress  had  undertaken  to  delegate  something  that  the  Con- 
stitution committed  to  itself,  and  that  therefore  this  local  legislation, 
although  within  the  line  of  the  grant  of  Congress,  was  unconstitutional 
and  void. 

Now,  in  this  very  same  opinion,  this  dissenting  opinion  to  which  first 
I  want  to  call  attention — that  is,  the  dissenting  opinion  of  Justice  Shiras 
in  Vance  v.  The  W  A.  Vandercook  Company — Justice  Shiras  con- 
vincingly maintains  that  Congress  can  not  delegate  to  a  State  any  of 
its  powers  over  interstate  commerce  and  points  out — and  this  comes  to 
your  question,  Senator  Allen — what  is  as  yet  unanswered,  that  in  none 
of  the  preceding  cases  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  was  this  question 
necessary  to  be  decided,  or,  in  fact,  decided,  for  the  reason  that  intoxi- 
cating liquors,  from  their  very  nature,  were  conceded  to  threaten  the 
public  safety,  the  public  morals,  and  the  public  health,  to  which  mat- 
ters the  police  power  extends,  and  that  as  to  such  articles  the  right  of 
self  protection  in  the  States  was  obvious  and  proper  to  be  preserved. 


394  OLEOMAEGAEINE. 

I  doubt  if  there  is  a  parallel  to  these  decisions  in  the  whole  of  the 
reports  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  a  case  in  which  the 
mouthpiece  of  the  court  in  the  main  opinion — that  is,  the  South  Caro- 
lina case  following  the  Iowa  case  to  which  you  refer — in  which  the 
mouthpiece  of  the  court  in  the  main  opinion  in  a  subsequent  dissent 
protested  to  his  fellows  that  they  did  not  mean  to  say  what  they  claim 
in  their  subsequent  majority  was  the  effect  of  the  decision,  and  pro- 
claiming that  had  that  been  the  intention  of  the  court  at  the  time  he 
would  iiave  been  on  the  dissenting  side  instead  of  on  the  majority  side. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  But  in  the  Iowa  case  the  court  hinted  at  that 
legislation,  and  Congress  followed  the  hint  of  the  court  and  did  com- 
mit to  the  States  an  absolute  control  over  original  packages  of  liquor. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  exactly  what  I  am  considering  now. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Has  the  validity  of  that  act  of  Congress  ever 
been  brought  into  dispute? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  exactly  the  point  to  which  I  am  addressing  my- 
self, Senator  Dolliyer.  In  the  case  of  Scott  v.  Donald  (165  U.  S.,  58),  in 
general  terms,  without  qualification,  speaking  of  the  intoxicating- 
liquors  law,  the  Supreme  Court  did  decide  that  that  was  a  constitutional 
exercise  of  the  powers  of  Congress.  That  was  the  first  of  the  dis- 
pensary cases  from  South  Carolina.  Judge  Shiras  delivered  the  opinion 
in  that  case.  In  a  subsequent  case,  when  the  court  sought  to  make  it 
appear  that  that  was  a  broad  decision  as  to  the  validity  of  that  act  of 
Congress,  so  as  to  make  it  applicable  to  all  subjects  of  interstate  com- 
merce, he  protested  that  that  was  not  the  meaning  of  the  decision; 
that  it  never  was  in  his  mind  to  say  so  when  he  delivered  the  opinion, 
and  I  am  going  to  quote  you  his  words  to  show  you  that  he  distin- 
guishes that  case  very  clearly  and  shows  that  what  the  court  meant  to 
say  was  that  in  respect  to  such  a  thing  as  intoxicating  liquors  it  was 
a  valid  exercise  of  the  constitutional  powers  of  Congress,  but  that  as 
to  any  other  wholesome  subject  of  commerce  Congress  had  no  right  so 
to  do.  I  will  read  you  his  words  in  a  few  moments,  and  that  is  the 
point,  if  I  may  say  so,  which  has  not  been  observed  in  any  of  the  dis- 
cussions, either  before  the  other  committee  or  before  this  one;  and  to 
me  it  presents  the  real  point  in  connection  with  the  consideration  of 
the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  this  section. 

In  support  of  Judge  Shiras's  opinion  in  the  later  case,  he  quotes  from 
the  initial  case,  this  case  of  Scott  v.  Donald,  in  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  under  that  act  of  1890.  That  is  the  act  you  speak 
of,  Senator  Dolliver,  as  having  been  passed  on  the  hint  of  the  decision 
in  the  Iowa  case.  This  law  subjects  intoxicating  liquors  to  the  effect 
of  State  laws  upon  their  arrival  in  the  States.  In  that  case  Judge 
Shiras  delivered  the  opinion  himself,  and,  speaking  of  the  original 
South  Carolina  dispensary  law,  which  was  then  under  consideration, 
he  said,  in  165  U.  S.,  100: 

It  is  not  a  law  purporting  to  forbid  the  importation,  manufacture,  sale,  and  use  of 
intoxicating  liquors  as  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  State  and  to  the  health  of 
the  inhabitants,  and  hence  it  is  not  within  the  scope  and  operation  of  the  act  of  Con- 
gress of  August,  1890.  That  law  was  not  intended  to  confer  upon  any  State  the 
power  to  discriminate  injuriously  against  the  products  of  other  States  in  articles 
whose  manufacture  and  use  are  not  forbidden,  and  whioh  are  therefore  the  subjects 
of  legitimate  commerce. 

He  distinctly  put  his  opinion,  which  was  the  majority  opinion,  in 
Scott  v.  Donald,  upon  the  proposition  that  the  act  of  1890  was  confined 
in  its  operation  to  intoxicating  liquors,  because,  to  use  the  language  of 
the  court  in  another  case,  they  are  confessedly  conducive  to  pauperism, 
idleness,  and  crime,  and  recognized  as  having  such  a  tendency. 


OLEOMAEGABINE.  395 

You  will  observe  that  in  this  Scott  v.  Donald  case  the  Supreme 
Court  luid  before  it  for  consideration  and  construction  the  act  upon 
which  the  first  section  of  this  act  is  framed.  It  related  to  intoxicating 
liquors.  Justice  Shiras  emphatically  protests  that  he  was  confining 
himself  in  deciding  the  case,  which  had  been  cited  as  a  precedent,  to 
the  fact  that  it  was  intoxicating  liquors  that  were  dealt  with,  and  he 
said  it  was  never  intended  to  reach  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  arti 
des  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  which  were  not  injurious,  and  which 
were  therefore  the  legitimate  subject  of  commerce. 

Now,  in  the  Schollenberger  case,  which  has  already  been  cited  to  you 
in  171  U.  S.,  the  Supreme  Court  distinctly  declared  oleomargarine  to  be 
a  healthful  and  nutritious  article  of  food  and  a  proper  subject  of  com 
merce,  and  in  his  concurring  opinion  in  the  case  of  Mugler  v.  Kansas, 
123  U.  S.,  623,  at  page  676,  Justice  Field  states  this  unanswerable 
proposition : 

If  one  State  can  forbid  the  sale  within  its  limits  of  an  imported  article,  so  may 
all  the  States,  each  selecting  a  different  article.  There  would  then  be  little  uni- 
formity of  regulations  with  respect  to  articles  of  foreign  commerce  carried  into  dif- 
ferent States,  and  the  same  may  also  be  said  of  regulations  in  respect  to  articles  of 
interstate  commerce,  and  we  know  it  was  one  of  the  objects  of  the  formation  of  the 
Federal  Constitution  to  secure  uniformity  of  commercial  regulations  against  dis- 
criminating State  legislation. 

Mr.  Justice  Shiras,  in  this  case  I  have  already  referred  to,  the  case 
of  Vance  against  the  Vaudercook  Company,  vigorously  protests 
against  any  suggestion  that  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court  in 
the  case  of  Scott  v.  Donald  he  was  assenting  to  the  validity  of  the  act 
of  August  8,  1890,  as  to  all  articles  of  commerce.  I  read  you  his  exact 
words: 

1  am  altogether  unwilling  to  attribute  to  Congress  an  intention  to  abandon  the 
protection  of  interstate  commerce  in  articles  of  food  or  drink,  whether  for  personal 
use  or  for  sale,  where  similar  articles  are  treated  by  a  State  as  lawful  subjects  of 
domestic  commerce.  If  such  were  the  intention  of  Congress  in  the  act  of  August, 
1890,  I  should  be  compelled  to  regard  such  legislation  as  invalid.  The  control  and 
regulation  of  foreign  and  interstate  commerce  are  among  the  most  important  powers 
possessed  by  the  National  Legislature,  and,  as  has  often  been  said  by  this  court, 
were  among^the  most  potent  causes  which  led  to  the  establishment  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  conceded  purpose  of  protecting  commerce  from  hostile  action  between 
the  States  would  be  defeated  if  Congress  could  withdraw  from  the  exercise  of  its 
powers  in  such  matters  and  turn  them  over  to  the  legislatures  of  the  States,  but 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Congress  intended  any  such  act  of  abnegation  in 
the  present  instance.  Reasonable  meaning  and  effect  can  be  given  to  the  act  of 
August  8,  1890,  without  giving  it  such  a  construction  as  would  raise  the  serious 
question  of  its  constitutionality. 

I  have  not  time  to  read  the  rest  of  this  opinion,  but  Judge  Shiras 
goes  into  this  act  over  again,  and  he  points  out  how  the  act  can  be 
sustained  without  any  reference  to  its  constitutionality,  and  he  makes 
his  vigorous  protest  against  being  counted  among  those  who  at  any 
time  would  be  supposed  to  believe  this  act  constitutional  if  it  had  ref- 
erence to  anything  else  but  intoxicating  liquors. 

I  commend  this  opinion  to  your  most  careful  consideration.  Of 
course  in  ordinary  I  would  not  cite  from  a  dissenting  opinion;  but,  as 
I  say,  this  is  a  unique  case.  Here  is  a  case  in  which  the  justice,  deliv- 
ering the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  court,  finds  that  opinion  turned 
to  a  meaning  which  he  never  entertained  when  delivering  it,  and  in 
justice  to  his  intelligence  and  his  own  constitutional  views  he  puts  his 
protest  on  record  at  the  first  opportunity. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Who  would  be  the  judge  whether  the  article 
interdicted  was  properly  subject  to  the  police  powers  of  the  State  in 
relation  to  public  health  ? 


396  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  very  glad  you  asked  that  question.  I  freely  con- 
cede that  the  State  would;  but  I  wish  to  ask  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  Congress  here  is  proposing  to  submit  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the 
States  an  article  which  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has 
said  that  Congress  itself  has  recognized  as  wholesome  and  nutritious 
and  not  a  fit  subject  of  prohibition.  I  will  show  you  that  to  a  demon- 
stration. I  concede  that  the  police  power  of  the  State  can  touch  arti- 
cles of  food,  but  it  must  touch  them  for  a  reason. 

Justice  Peckham,  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court  in  the  Schollen- 
barger  case,  says,  in  effect : 

Congress  has,  by  the  act  of  1886,  recognized  this  as  a  fit  subject  of  commerce.  We 
say,  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  this  land,  as  matter  of  judicial  notice,  without  any  wit- 
ness having  appeared  before  us,  that  this  article  is  wholesome  and  nutritious,  and 
that  stays  the  hand  of  the  United  States  from  authorizing  the  police  power  of  any 
State  to  interfere  with  it. 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  The  legislation  of  1886,  I  suppose,  is  what  the 
Supreme  Court  bases  that  statement  on,  that  Congress  has  recognized 
the  article  as  not  a  fit  subject  for  the  State  to  exercise  the  police  power 
upon. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  As  a  legitimate  object  of  commerce;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  At  the  time,  I  recollect,  that  law  was  not  sup- 
posed to  be  a  certificate  of  high  moral  character. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  exactly  right;  and  I  only  regret  that  my  time 
has  not  enabled  me  to  unearth  an  extremely  clever  thing  that  was  pub- 
lished in  the  Washington  Post  just  the  day  after  Mr.  Cleveland  signed  this 
bill.  It  was  a  most  interesting  account  of  a  barnyard  convention  in 
the  lot  back  of  the  White  House.  It  described  the  sensations  through 
which  the  President  went  as  he  listened  to  the  cackle  of  the  hens  and 
the  lowing  of  the  cows  and  overheard  their  discussions  and  their  threats 
of  political  punishment  if  he  did  not  sign  the  oleomargarine  bill. 
[Laughter.]  It  was  intensely  entertaining,  but  I  did  not  have  time  to 
recover  it. 

You  have  come  right  to  the  point,  Senator  Dolliver,  and  I  am  coming 
back  to  it.  I  have  that  noted  in  the  subsequent  part  of  my  memorandum 
here,  and  I  am  coming  back  to  it,  but  I  Avill  stick  a  pin  in  it  right  now. 
The  Supreme  Court  in  that  Schollenbarger  case,  speaking  by  Mr.  Justice 
Peckham,  said,  in  effect: 

There  has  not  one  witness  appeared  to  testify  about  the  wholesomeness  or  the 
nutritiousness  of  this  article.  There  has  not  a  witness  appeared  to  tell  us  about  the 
constituents  of  it,  but  we  take  judicial  notice  of  the  fact  that  it  has  been  a  known 
article  of  commerce  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  We  take  judicial  notice  of  the  fact 
that  in  all  the  reports  of  the  chemists,  and  in  all  reports  of  the  departments  of  agri- 
culture of  the  States  and  of  the  United  States,  this  thing  has  been  probed,  and  we 
are  bound  to  say,  as  the  court  of  last  resort  and  the  highest  judicial  authority  of  this 
land,  that  the  stamp  of  wholesomeuess  and  of  nutritiousness  is  on  this  article,  and  it 
is  a  fit  subject  of  commerce. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  you  mean  that  by  the  mere  act  of  taxing  it 
it  puts  a  stamp  of  that  kind  on  it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  I  beg  your  pardon.  You  do  not  take  me,  Senator. 
He  did  not  say  that.  He  said  that  the  act  of  making  it  a  source  of 
re  venae  recognized  it  as  a  fit  subject  of  commerce.  Then  he  added: 
"Moreover,  in  addition  to  that,  we  do  take  judicial  notice  of  the  act  that 
it  is  wholesome  and  nutritious." 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  believe  that  same  opinion  was  given  by  one 
justice  on  the  subject  of  tobacco  the  other  day. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  that  was  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
by  Hon.  Peter  J.  Otey. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  397 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  No;  I  think  Mr.  Justice  Harlan  made  the  same 
proposition  in  the  cigarette  case. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  perfectly  ready  to  admit  that. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  In  other  words,  I  want  to  get  at  how  far  the  act 
of  1886  concludes  Congress  upon  the  question  of  wholesomeness. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Excuse  me,  sir;  I  do  not  say  it  does.  I  leave  that  alto- 
gether. I  care  nothing  about  it.  What  I  do  say  is  this,  that  the  power 
that  has  the  largest  office  in  declaring  the  law  of  this  land,  namely,  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  has  said  that  this  is  an  article  that 
ought  not  to  be  touched  by  the  police  power  because  it  is  wholesome 
and  nutritious;  that  it  ought  not  to  be  given  over. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  That  was  in  the  nature,  then,  of  mere  admonitory 
advice  to  the  legislatures  of  the  States. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Is  not  that  carrying  the  doctrine  of  judicial  notice 
to  quite  an  extent? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  can  only  answer  you  by  saying,  Senator,  that  they  have 
carried  it  to  that  extent;  and  until  the  Supreme  Court  changes  its 
view  that  stands  as  its  opinion  in  regard  to  the  wholesomeuess  of  this 
article. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Does  not  the  principle  you  have  stated  collide 
with  the  proposition  that  the  State  is  the  supreme  judge  of  the  welfare 
and  convenience  of  its  inhabitants  as  regards  the  exercising  of  its 
police  power? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  On  the  contrary,  Justice  Shiras  said  that  in  delivering 
that  main  opinion  he  thought  he  was  guarding  that  very  proposition. 
I  am  very  glad  of  this  interruption,  because  it  gives  me  a  chance  to 
refer  to  the  matter  twice.  Inasmuch  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  said  that  this  is  a  wholesome  and  a  nutritious  arti- 
cle of  food,  it  will  not  lie  in  the  mouth  of  the  legislative  branch  of  the 
Government  to  throw  the  glove  in  the  face  of  the  Supreme  Court  and 
say,  "  Here,  we  are  going  to  pass  laws  subjecting  to  exclusion  from  the 
States  the  very  thing  that  you  say  is  wholesome  and  nutritious  or  to 
subject  it  to  unreasonable  regulations  in  the  States;"  and  I  submit 
that  this  committee  will  not  recommend  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  that  it  put  itself  into  the  position  of  being  rebuked  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  We  want  to  avoid  that,  and  yet  we  do  not  want 
to  be  constrained  by  the  opinions  of  the  court  on  a  question  of  law. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  recognize  the  distinction  between  the  legislature  and 
the  judiciary,  I  take  it,  quite  fully  ;  but  in  the  subsequent  part  of  this 
memorandum  I  make  the  suggestion  that  when  we  are  making  law  we 
are  entitled  to  take  into  account  those  considerations  which  we  might 
not  take  into  account  after  a  law  has  been  placed  upon  the  statute 
books,  for  then  we  look  at  the  letter  of  it. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  do  not  know  that  I  am  wholly  prepared  to  accept 
the  doctrine  that  the  Supreme  Court  can  bind  the  legislative  depart 
ment  of  the  Government  in  determining  the  desirability  or  the  qualifi- 
cation of  any  food  product.    In  other  words,  is  it  not  a  legislative 
question  rather  than  a  judicial  one  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  May  1  put  a  question  to  you  in  return,  Yankee  fashion, 
if  Senator  Proctor  will  excuse  me? 

Senator  ALLEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  What  would  you  think  of  any  legislature  attempting  to 
regulate  the  size  and  shar^e  of  hats?  I  say  that  the  legislature  has  no 
more  right  to  deal  with  this  subject  of  oleomargarine,  except  within  the 
limits  of  the  Coustnution— that  is,  to  inspect  it  and  see  that  it  is  pure 


398  OLEOMARGARINE. 

when  it  comes  into  the  State — than  it  has  to  pass  a  law  requiring  every 
man  who  crosses  the  State  to  wear  a  plug  hat. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Suppose  there  was  something  entering  into  the  coin 
position  of  the  hat  which  was  deleterious,  which  would  make  it  inju- 
rious, or  suppose  it  was  believed  to  be  so,  to  the  extent  that  the  legis- 
lative department  should  pass  a  law  that  that  material  should  not  be 
used  in  a  hat.    Is  not  that  a  legislative  question? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  grant  it.  That  is  not  this  case.  Nobody  says  that 
oleomargarine  coloring  is  deleterious. 

Senator  ALLEN.  It  seems  to  me  it  covers  this  case  pretty  closely. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  grant  you  that  a  State  has  the  right  to  pass  any  inspec- 
tion law  to  see  that  articles  that  contain  deleterious  substances  are 
not  imposed  upon  its  citizens ;  but  beyond  that  it  has  not  the  right  to 
go.  I  agree  with  the  gentlemen  here  who  are  willing  to  have  this  sub- 
stitute  bill  pass.  Pass  the  most  stringent  inspection  laws  you  please, 
but  let  us  sell  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine,  and  do  not  tell  us  that 
we  can  not  sell  it  at  all. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Will  you  pardon  an  interruption? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  think  I  can  throw  a  good  deal  of  light  on  the  decision 
in  the  Schollenbarger  case. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Excuse  me.  If  you  are  going  into  that,  I  decline  to  be 
interrupted.  I  thought  you  wanted  to  ask  me  a  question,  and  I  am 
prepared  to  answer  that. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  ask  you  a  question,  then. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  What  is  it? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  was  the  Schollenbarger  case? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  An  original-package  case. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  kind  of  oleomargarine  was  it,  colored  or  uncolored  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  immaterial  whether  it  was  colored  or  uncolored. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  think  it  is  quite  material. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Excuse  me.  The  Supreme  Court  decision  was  point 
blank  that  the  Pennsylvania  law  which  had  been  previously  sustained 
in  the  Powell  case,  so  far  as  it  affected  interstate  commerce  and  oleo- 
margarine in  the  original  package,  was  an  invasion  of  the  interstate- 
commerce  powers  of  Congress,  and  therefore  to  that  extent  unconstitu- 
tional. It  does  not  make  any  difference  whether  it  was  colored  or 
uncolored.  Their  decision  flatly  was  that  an  attempt  to  deal  with  oleo- 
margarine coming  from  an  outside  State  in  an  original  package  was  an 
invasion  of  the  constitutional  powers  of  Congress. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  did  not  the  Schollenbarger  case  distinguish  between 
colored  and  uucolored  margarine? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir;  it  did  not,  and  you  gentlemen  have  but  to  lead 
that  opinion  to  see  that  it  is  a  plump  decision  against  that  much  of  the 
Pennsylvania  law  as  interfered  with  oleomargarine  in  original  pack- 
ages. Since  then  Pennsylvania  has  changed  its  law.  It  no  longer 
prevents  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine;  and  it  only  prohibits  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  that  is  colored  or  contains  ingredients 
making  it  look  like  butter.  I  had  the  pleasure  of  defending  a  num- 
ber of  gentlemen  engaged  in  this  enterprise  in  the  western  part  of 
Pennsylvania  last  fall,  and  the  very  intelligent  judge  who  presided 
ruled  to  the  jury  that  if  the  coloring  was  incident  to  an  ingredient 
that  entered  into  it,  that  provision  of  the  Pennsylvania  law  was  incon- 
sistent with  itself,  unreasonable,  and  not  to  be  observed,  and  the  men 
were  acquitted,  as  they  should  have  been. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  How  about  the  upper  courts? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  399 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  could  not  go  to  the  upper  courts.  The  men  were 
acquitted. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Has  not  that  question  been  decided  in  some  other  case 
in  Pennsylvania  in  the  upper  courts? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Not  that  1  know.  It  had  not  been  decided,  unfortu- 
nately for  me,  last  September  when  I  was  out  there. 

In  addition,  although  it  is  not  essential  to  the  argument,  I  want  to 
say  this:  Assume  that  you  have  the  power  to  pass  this  law,  the  first 
section  of  this  act.  I  do  say  it  would  be  a  most  unwise  and  a  most 
unjust  exercise  of  the  legislative  power.  It  would' be  unwise  for  the 
reasons  that  have  been  so  fully  stated  by  Justice  Shiras  and  Justice 
Field;  and  the  Supreme  Court  reports  are  alight  with  observations  of 
the  same  kind.  Assume  a  man  in  the  State  of  Virginia  to  make  oleo- 
margarine. If  this  bill  becomes  a  law,  he  has  to  run  the  chances  of  44 
varying  sets  of  regulations  in  order  to  get  that  into  the  commerce  of  the 
United  States.  He  not  only  has  to  deal  with  the  sister  State  of  Mary- 
land and  the  sister  State  of  Kentucky,  or  of  Tennessee,  but  he  has  to 
reckon  with  Pennsylvania,  and  New  York,  and  the  Western  States,  or 
the  far  Southern  States;  and  it  is  a  prohibition  of  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine  by  sheer  necessity,  for  the  man  who  makes  oleomargarine 
will*  have  to  know  the  regulations  of  every  State,  which  are  the  subject 
ot  constant  change.  He  has  to  know  the  laws  of  every  State,  which 
are  the  subject  of  constant  change;  and  he  may  shape  his  enterprise 
to-day  for  next  spring's  market,  only  to  find  that  that  market  has  been 
destroyed  by  a  legislature  that  has  sat  in  the  meantime.  It  is  most 
unwise  legislation.  It  is  most  unpractical  legislation.  It  is  most 
impracticable  legislation.  Not  only  is  it  unwise,  but  it  is  unjust.  It  is 
grossly  unjust. 

I  perhaps  speak  with  a  little  more  warmth  about  this  than  is  essen- 
tial to  the  argument ;  but  I  have  been  engaged  in  representing  these 
interests  for  a  number  of  years.  I  have  seen  this  industry  grow — 
although  I  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  it  except  as  a  lawyer— I  have 
seen  from  time  to  time  the  extension  of  the  industry ;  I  have  seen  the 
prejudice  against  this  article  when  it  was  at  its  height,  and  I  am  happy 
to  say  that  I  have  seen  its  gradual  disappearance,  until  presently  the 
man  who  votes  for  this  oleomargarine  bill,  if  he  lives  long  enough,  will 
be  able  to  say  what  the  late  Senator  Harris  said  of  himself  when  the 
bill  was  before  Congress  to  give  Morse  the  money  to  build  a  telegraph 
line  from  Baltimore  to  Washington.  Senator  Harris  said:  "Why,  I 
would  just  as  soon  think  of  voting  the  Government  money  to  open 
communication  with  the  moonF  He  always  said,  in  after  life,  that  he 
did  not  like  anybody  to  remind  him  of  that  fact.  But  when  this  preju- 
dice shall  have  entirely  passed  away,  some  of  us  who  are  discussing  this 
subject  will  wonder  at  the  feeling  that  has  been  got  up  over  it. 

Now,  apart  from  its  being  unwise,  as  I  say,  it  is  unjust.  Here  are, 
throughout  this  country,  numberless  factories  making  this  product  and 
putting  it  on  the  market.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  are  invested 
in  the  en  terprise.  Thousands  on  thousands  of  men  are  employed.  Tens 
of  thousands  of  families  are  supported  by  it.  This  industry  is  turning 
out  a  product  that  the  poor  man  wants — not  only  wants,  but  is  anxious 
to  have — that  he  knows  is  wholesome  and  nutritious.  He  does  not  want 
to  be  deprived  of  it,  and  there  is  no  reason  that  he  should  be  deprived 
of  it,  it  having  the  stamp  of  the  leading  chemists  of  the  world  and  of 
the  highest  legal  tribunal  of  the  world  as  to  its  wholesomeness  and 
nutritiousness. 


400  OLEOMARGARINE. 

But  this  belongs  a  little  farther  down,  more  properly,  and  I  will  pass 
from  that  to  the  second  main  proposition  that  I  wish  to  lay  before  you, 
and  that  is  that  Congress  has  no  police  power  to  delegate,  and  never 
did  have.  In  the  case  of  Rahrer,  which  is  in  140  U.  S.,  the  Supreme 
Court  disposes  of  that  matter  in  a  very  few  words  at  page  155 : 

It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  the  power  to  make  the  ordinary  regulations  of  police 
remains  with  the  individual  States  and  can  not  be  assumed  by  the  National  Govern- 
ment. 

The  clear  and  weighty  language  of  Mr.  Justice  Catron  in  the  license 
cases  in  5  Howard,  quoted  at  some  length  at  pages  557  to  559  of  this 
Kahrer  case,  has  already  been  read  to  you  by  Judge  Springer,  so  I  will 
not  trouble  you  with  it  again;  but  I  ask  your  special  attention  to  the 
case  of  Plumley  v.  Massachusetts,  which  is  the  case  upon  which  our 
friends,  the  enemy,  principally  rely  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  In  that  case  the  Supreme  Court  distinctly  held,  at  page  471, 
that  the  grant  to  Congress  of  authority  to  regulate  foreign  and  inter- 
state commerce  did  not  involve  a  surrender  by  the  States  of  their 
police  powers;  and  such  has  been  the  uniform  holding  of  the  Supreme 
Court  as  far  back  as  Prigg  v.  The  Commonwealth,  16  Peters,  529, 
which  was  decided  at  the  January  term,  1842,  in  which  Mr.  Justice 
Story,  speaking  for  the  entire  court,  says  that  the — 

police  power  extends  over  all  subjects  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  States,  and 
has  never  been  conceded  to  the  United  States. 

So  I  say  that  not  only  can  Congress  not  delegate  any  police  power  to 
a  State,  but  also  that  it  has  not  any  to  delegate.  But  just  suppose, 
now,  for  the  purposes  of  argument,  that  Congress  has  the  power— and  I 
am  obliged  to  concede  that  as  to  my  particular  client  Congress  has  the 
power  in  the  District  of  Columbia — suppose  that  Congress  has  the  full 
police  power  over  the  subject,  I  still  contend  that  this  bill,  as  to  neither 
its  first  nor  second  sections,  proposes  an  exercise  of  the  police  power. 

That  we  may  inquire  into  this,  notwithstanding  the  title  and  language 
of  the  act,  is  too  clear  for  argument.  I  wish  to  read  you  from  the  lan- 
guage of  the  court,  speaking  by  Mr.  Justice  Harlan,  in  the  case  of 
Mugler  v.  Kansas,  123  U.  S.,  623.  I  read  first  from  page  661 : 

It  belongs  to  that  department  [speaking  of  the  Legislative  Department]  to  exert 
what  are  known  as  the  police  powers  of  the  State,  and  to  determine  primarily  what 
measures  are  appropriate  or  needful  for  the  protection  of  the  public  morals,  the 
public  health,  or  the  public  safety.  It  does  not  at  all  follow  that  every  statute 
enacted  ostensibly  for  the  promotion  of  these  ends  is  to  be  accepted  as  a  legitimate 
exertion  of  the  police  power  of  the  State.  There  are  limits  beyond  which  legisla- 
tion can  not  rightfully  go. 

Then,  a  little  farther  down  the  page : 

The  courts  are  not  bound  by  mere  forms,  nor  are  they  to  be  misled  by  mere  pre- 
tenses. They  are  at  liberty,  indeed  are  under  a  solemn  duty,  to  look  at  the  sub- 
stance of  things  whenever  they  enter  upon  an  inquiry  whether  the  legislature  has 
transcended  the  limits  of  its  authority.  If,  therefore,  a  statute  purporting  to  have 
been  enacted  to  protect  the  public  health,  the  public  morals,  or  the  public  safety 
has  no  real  or  substantial  relation  to  those  objects,  or  is  a  palpable  invasion  of 
rights  secured  by  a  fundamental  law,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  courts  to  so  adjudge  and, 
therefore,  give  effect  to  the  Constitution. 

And  in  delivering  this  opinion  the  court  quoted  at  large  from  cases 
in  New  York  and  a  number  of  other  States  in  which  the  identical  lan- 
guage in  some  instances,  and  in  others  the  substance  of  it,  has  been 
used.  In  any  event,  that  is  the  clear  language  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

Again,  on  on  page  663  of  this  same  report,  the  opinion  proceeds: 

Undoubtedly  the  State,  when  providing  by  legislation  for  the  protection  of  the 
public  health,  public  morals,  or  the  public  safety,  is  subject  to  the  parrnount 


OLEOMABGAKINE.  401 

authority  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  may  not  violate  rights 
secured  or  guaranteed  by  that  instrument,  or  interfere  with  the  execution  of  the 
powers  confided  to  the  General  Government. 

Moreover,  in  the  very  late  case  of  the  United  States  v.  Collins,  in  171 
U.  S.,  to  which  also  Judge  Springer  called  your  attention,  the  case  in 
which  the  pink-color  law  of  New  Hampshire  was  declared  unconstitu- 
tional as  to  oleomargarine,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  law  unconsti- 
tutional because,  in  its  own  words: 

"It  was,  in  necessary  effect,  prohibitory" — not  from  its  language, 
but  in  necessary  effect  prohibitory ;  and  the  court  further  declared 
hat — 

In  whatever  language  a  statute  may  be  framed,  its  purpose  must  be  determined 
jy  its  natural  and  reasonable  effect. 

Now,  as  the  Supreme  Court  says,  and  as  the  courts  of  this  land  with- 
out exception  say,  we  have  the  right  to  look  behind  the  language  of 
an  act  to  find  what  its  meaning  is  and  what  its  purpose.  Let  us  see. 
In  the  first  place,  I  say  the  title  of  this  bill  shows  its  purpose.  Its 
title  is  "A  bill  to  make  oleomargarine  and  other  imitation  dairy 
products  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  State  or  Territory  into  which  they 
are  transported,  and  to  change  the  tax  on  oleomargarine." 

It  is  the  judgment  of  the  highest  court  of  this  land,  and  it  is  the 
common  knowledge  of  everybody  who  has  ever  given  this  subject  as 
much  as  a  day's  attention,  that  oleomargarine  is  not  an  imitation  of 
butter;  that  it  is  a  substitute  for  butter;  confessedly  so,  professedly  so, 
advertised  as  such,  manufactured  and  sold  as  such.  It  is  not  an  imita- 
tion of  butter.  It  is  merely  a  wholesome  and  nutritious  substitute  for 
butter.  So  I  say  that  this  act  starts  out  in  its  very  title  with  a  mis- 
description,  which,  whatever  its  purpose,  has  the  effect  of  discrediting 
this  article  and  thereby  putting  a  stigma  upon  its  manufacture  and  use, 
which  clearly  reveals  the  object  of  this  bill. 

In  the  next  place,  I  say  there  is  no  pretense  in  this  title  of  any  object 
in  changing  the  tax  on  oleomargarine.  It  is  not  described  as  a  bill  to 
increase  or  even  to  raise  revenue,  but  only  as  a  bill  to  change,  for  some 
unstated  reason,  which  is  the  same  as  no  reason,  an  existing  tax. 

And  again,  in  neither  the  title  nor  the  body  of  the  bill  is  any  reason 
given  or  even  hinted  at  for  the  extraordinary  action  proposed  by  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  in  singling  out  of  the  myriad  of  nutri- 
tious and  wholesome  products  of  the  land  a  single  class,  which,  by  a 
coincidence,  which  of  course  is  purely  accidental,  conflicts  with  the  per- 
sonal interests  of  the  promoters  of  this  bill. 

Now,  in  ordinary,  as  I  said  a  while  ago,  when  a  statute  has  become 
the  law  of  the  land,  is  on  the  statute  books,  we  can  not  go  back  to  the 
debates  of  Congress  or  the  arguments  of  counsel  before  committees, 
or  the  reports  of  committees,  to  find  what  the  law  means;  but  the 
Supreme  Court  says,  notwithstanding,  that  you  may  probe  a  law  and 
find  if  it  is  honest  in  its  declared  purpose,  and  if  not,  and  it  ought  not 
to  stand,  you  may  strike  it  down.  Furthermore,  while  we  are  in  the 
act  of  making  law  it  is  eminently  proper  that  we  should  take  due 
account  of  these  considerations  before  oversight  of  them  leads  us  into 
making  objectionable  and  regretable  laws. 

I  say,  therefore,  that  we  may  look  into  this  bill  and  we  may  find  what 
it  means;  and  we  have  the  right  to  do  it  notwithstanding  its  language. 
We  have  the  right  to  do  it  notwithstanding  the  interests  that  are  back 
of  it.  We  have  the  right  to  do  it,  and  turn  the  search  light  of  honest 
purpose  on  it  and  see  what  it  is  meant  to  do.  I  say  that  it  has  but  one 
object,  and  that  is  to  crush  the  oleomargarine  industry;  and  whether 
S.  Rep.  2043 26 


402  OLEOMAEGAE1NE. 

that  is  expressed  or  not,  it  is  so  plain  that  he  who  runs  may  read,  and 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  is  now  asked  to  pass  a  law  to  suppress 
and  strike  down  an  industry  in  which  thousands  on  thousands  of  dol- 
lars are  invested  and  which  is  supporting  thousands  on  thousands  of 
people,  in  respect  of  an  industry  which  the  highest  court  in  the  land  has 
set  its  approval  upon  as  being  wholesome  and  nutritious  in  its  product. 

Suppose  you  call  this  a  bill  to  raise  revenue  or  to  increase  revenue. 
It  would  not  stand  the  scrutiny  of  a  minute.  Why?  Because  I  would 
send  to  the  document  room  and  bring  you  the  pending  bill  to  reduce 
the  revenue,  because  you  have  too  much  of  it.  I  would  call  to  your 
attention  the  indubitable  fact  that  if  you  want  to  collect  revenue  in  the 
face  of  what  these  gentlemen  have  told  you  here  you  are  going  to  cut 
off  revenue  instead  of  collecting  it,  because  you  are  going  to  put  a  tax 
on  it  so  high  that  the  manufacture  will  be  stopped  and  your  source  of 
supply  will  be  stopped. 

I  do  not  speak  too  strongly  when  I  say  that  the  object  of  this  bill  is 
perfectly  plain  to  any  man  who  can  use  his  eyes  and  will  indulge  in  a 
moment's  reflection.  It  is  not  an  honest  bill  in  the  sense  that  it  means 
what  it  appears  to  show  upon  its  face — that  it  is  for  the  regulation  of 
an  industry.  It  is  intended  to  destroy  an  industry;  and  I  ask  you  if 
that  be  not  so  what  is  the  meaning  in  this  second  section  of  this  very 
great  discrimination  between  colored  and  uncolored  oleomargarine. 

You  are  doing  what?  You  are  putting  this  tax  on  colored  oleomar- 
garine, if  you  do  it,  only  in  order  that  the  butter  industry  may  not  be 
trespassed  upon.  You  are  not  doing  it  to  collect  revenues,  because 
the  higher  the  revenue  you  exact  the  less  of  it  you  collect.  You  are 
not  doing  it  to  prevent  fraud,  because  the  greater  profit  you  hold  out 
to  the  man  who  commits  fraud  the  more  you  tempt  him  to  do  it. 
Tested  from  every  moral  point  of  view,  the  bill  will  not  stand  a 
moment's  scrutiny;  and,  as  I  have  already  said,  this  proviso  that  has 
been  put  in  here,  "Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  pre- 
vent the  prohibition  of  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  that  is  in  a  separate 
and  distinct  form,  and  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of 
its  real  character,  free  from  coloration  or  ingredient  that  causes  it  to 
look  like  butter,"  enables  the  States,  by  implication,  to  forbid  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine  into  which  cotton-seed  oil  enters,  because — I 
say  this  on  my  own  responsibility,  and  as  a  fact — when  I  was  trying 
these  cases  in  western  Pennsylvania  I  demonstrated  to  the  jury  and  to 
the  court  that  the  reason  for  the  color  in  the  product  then  under  con- 
sideration was  the  use  of  cotton-seed  oil,  and  they  put  upon  the  stand— 
I  can  not  give  you  the  name,  but  I  can  furnish  it — the  chemist  of  the 
Western  University  of  Pennsylvania,  who,  under  niy  cross-examina- 
tion, admitted  that  to  be  true,  that  cotton-seed  oil  inevitably  causes  a 
yellowish  color  to  the  product. 

If  you  pass  this  bill  with  that  proviso,  you  destroy  the  manufacture 
of  oleomargarine  with  cotton-seed  oil  throughout  the  United  States. 
I  know  that  by  my  own  experience  in  trying  these  cases.  It  is  a  fact 
that  I  have  not  seen  adverted  to  in  any  statements  that  have  been  made 
before  either  committee. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  On  the  contrary,  Mr.  Davis,  the  statements  have 
been  quite  numerous  here  that  the  natural  color  of  oleomargarine  with 
cotton-seed  oil  was  not  the  color  of  butter,  but  a  white  color. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  will  tell  you  that  the  State  chemist,  whose  name  I  can 
furnish  you,  so  stated  under  oath  to  me  in  the  presence  of  that  jury 
and  trial  judge. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Then  there  has  been  a  good  deal  of  misinforma- 
tion unloaded  on  us  here. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  403 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  can  tell  you  the  name  of  the  trial  judge,  the  judge  at 
Uniontown,  Pa.  He  told  the  jury  that  if  they  believed  that  was  so 
they  should  acquit,  and  they  did  it. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  That  would  not  be  conclusive. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  but  he  said  so,  and  the  jury  found  it  as  a  fact  that 
the  coloring  in  that  particular  article  which  was  said  to  be  improperly 
colored  was  due  to  the  cotton-seed  oil  in  it,  and  that  struck  me  when  I 
read  this  bill.  You  are  going  to  say  to  the  States,  "  We  give  up  our 
interstate-commerce  regulations  so  far  as  this  thing  is  concerned,  but 
you  must  not  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  that 
has  not  any  ingredient  in  it  that  will  make  it  look  like  butter."  But 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania  has  passed  a  law,  and  other  States  have 
passed  laws,  forbidding  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine 
that  has  any  ingredient  in  it  that  makes  it  look  like  butter.  That  is 
as  much  as  to  say  that  while  you  forbid  prohibition  of  the  one  kind  you 
by  implication  permit  the  other,  and  the  State  may  suppress  the  man- 
ufacture of  oleomargarine  into  which  cotton- seed  oil  enters.  It  was 
entirely  new  to  me. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  do  not  think  that  the  verdict  of  that  jury 
should  be  taken  as  conclusive  upon  that  point. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  I  agree  with  you  about  that,  because  we  know  there 
are  three  things  that  Providence,  it  is  said,  can  not  foretell,  and  one  of 
them  is  the  verdict  of  a  jury;  but  the  State  chemist  so  testified  under 
the  State's  examination  in  part,  and  in  part  under  mine. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  These  cotton-seed  oil  men,  who  talked  very 
intelligently  to  us  yesterday,  did  not  seem  to  have  heard  of  that. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Probably  they  have  not  heard  of  it.  They  do  not  know 
all  about  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  It  is  possible  that  the  cotton- seed  oil  contained  color 
before  it  went  into  the  oloemargarine. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  chemist  testified  that  he  was  familiar  with  the  formula 
of  oleomargarine;  that  he  knew  about  the  manufacture  and  all  that 
sort  of  thing;  that  he  himself  was  familiar  with  the  ingredients.  When 
I  asked  him  about  the  formula  according  to  which  it  was  testified  in 
this  case  this  oleomargarine  was  made,  one  of  the  ingredients  being 
cotton-seed  oil,  he  had  to  admit  that  it  would  give  it  a  yellowish,  but- 
terish  color  traceable  only  to  the  cotton-seed  oil.  But  the  point  of  it  is, 
whether  that  be  true  or  be  not  true,  you  are  excepting  the  prohibition 
by  the  States  of  the  manufacture  of  a  certain  kind  of  oleomargarine 
and  leaving  it  open  to  them  to  suppress  absolutely  the  manufacture  of 
any  other  kind;  and  that  is  "neither  fish,  flesh,  nor  fowl,  nor  good  red 
herring." 

Then,  furthermore,  it  is  said  in  support  of  this  bill  that  this  coloring 
is  put  in  for  purposes  of  fraud.  I  am  not  going  to  take  your  time  by 
going  over  the  question  of  the  coloring  of  butter.  You  have  heard  ail 
jibout  that  until  probably  you  do  not  want  to  hear  any  more;  but  I 
1  irotest  that  oleomargarine  is  not  colored  with  fraudulent  intent.  I  say 
that  the  reason  oleomargarine  is  colored  was  given  by  Mr.  Wilson, 
unfortunately  now  dead,  when  he  was  before  the  House  committee.  It 
is  because  the  eye  assists  the  palate  in  respect  to  palatability ;  and,  as 
he  said,  the  poor  man  has  a  right  to  have  his  eye  tickled  by  the  color 
of  his  butter  just  as  well  as  the  rich  man;  and  I  call  your  attention 
especially  to  what  Professor  Wiley,  who  has  been  so  often  misquoted 
about  this  matter,  has  to  say  on  that  subject,  as  reported  on  pages  190 
and  191  of  the  proceedings  before  the  House  committee.  He  is  a  most 
intelligent  man.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  has  been  before  this  com- 


404  OLEOMAKGARIKE. 

mittee  or  not.     He  needs  no  encomium  from  me.    Professor  Wiley  is  too 
well  known  the  world  over.     Says  he: 

Now,  the  value  of  a  food  is  measured  solely  by  two  standards.  First,  its  palata 
bility;  and  second,  its  nutritive  properties.  You  need  not  try  to  convince  human 
beings  that  palatability  is  not  an  element  in  nutrition,  because  it  is,  and  yet  you  get 
a  great  deal  more  out  of  a  food  if  it  is  palatable  in  its  taste  and  attractive  in  its 
appearance,  because  the  attitude  of  the  digestive  organs  changes  absolutely  with 
the  appearance  of  the  food.  If  you  were  to  put  butter  up  in  the  form  of  ink,  it 
might  t>e  just  as  digestible,  and  all  that,  and  yet  it  would  not  be  so  useful  as  a  food. 
The  appearance  of  the  food  has  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  attitude  of  the  digestive 
organs  toward  it. 

A  MEMBER.  It  is  simply  a  reaction  from  it? 

Dr.  WILEY  (continuing).  Yes;  because  the  mind,  the  mental  attitude,  influences 
the  secretion  of  the  ferments  which  produce  the  digestion,  and  hence  we  must  have 
some  regard  to  that  appearance. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Would  you  regard  it  is  a  matter  altogether  free 
from  criticism  for  a  new  business  like  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine 
to  attempt  to  get  the  advantage  of  the  mental  attitude  that  has  been 
created  toward  butter  through  the  centuries  that  it  has  been  in  use? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  will  come  to  that  with  another  quotation  from  Judge 
Peckham  in  a  few  minutes.  You  have  put  in  a  nutshell  the  whole 
argument  on  the  other  side,  that  because  a  thing  is  first  in  the  field  it 
has  the  right  to  keep  everything  else  out  of  the  field,  and  I  propose  to 
show  you  that  that  has  not  the  sanction  of  the  highest  court  of  this 
land. 

Now,  I  give  another  personal  experience.  I  have  a  number  of  farmer 
friends  here  within  striking  distance  of  Washington,  among  whom  I 
spend  a  great  deal  of  my  time.  One  of  them,  a  most  prosperous  farmer, 
for  years  was  the  maker  of  his  own  butter.  In  stead  of  making  it  now  he 
furnishes  it  to  a  neighbor,  because  he  finds  it  more  profitable  to  sell  his 
milk  and  cream  than  to  take  the  time  to  churn,  but  the  same  cream 
comes  back  to  him  on  his  table  as  the  same  butter  he  has  been  eating 
since  he  was  a  boy,  and  that  I  have  been  eating  at  his  table  for  years. 
The  other  day  when  I  was  at  his  table  his  good  wife  asked  him,  please, 
to  caution  the  man  to  whom  he  was  furnishing  his  cream  to  do  the 
mixing  of  the  butter  a  little  better,  because,  she  said,  "when  it  looks 
that  way  I  can't  eat  it" — a  perfectly  natural  experience.  The  very 
thing  that  had  gone  from  her  own  farm,  and  which  she  had  been  eating 
for  years  and  years,  was  made  into  butter  by  exactly  the  same  proc- 
esses she  had  been  used  to,  but  it  did  not  look  like  it,  and  so  it  was 
unpalatable.  What  Dr.  Wiley  says  is  a  perfectly  plain  and  intelligent 
remark,  a  perfectly  sage  remark.  The  appearance  to  the  eye  is  a  part 
of  palatability.  You  hear  people  say  they  can  not  eat  calf's  brains 
because  they  make  them  think  of  certain  things  that  are  not  altogether 
proper  to  mention  to  ears  polite,  especially  in  mixed  company.  And 
so  with  other  articles  of  diet.  The  eye  is  offended  and  the  palate 
rebels,  and  the  object  of  putting  this  color  into  the  butter  is  to  avoid 
that.  ,1  will  come  presently  to  the  other  aspect  of  it. 

Now  then,  it  is  said,  in  the  next  place,  as  to  the  coloring  of  butter, 
Why  is  it  that  we  can  not  enforce  the  State  laws?  You  have  plenty 
State  laws.  Why  are  they  not  enforced?  That  is  the  reason  we  have 
to  come  to  Congress.  I  want  to  ask  our  friends  on  the  other  side  why 
they  are  not  enforced?  That  is  not  for  us  to  answer;  it  is  for  them  to 
answer;  but  I  will  answer  it.  There  are  several  reasons  why  those 
State  laws  are  not  enforced.  The  first  reason  is  because  they  are 
unpopular;  the  second  reason  is  because  they  are  against  the  poor 
man ;  the  third  reason  is  because  the  public  approval  is  not  behind 
them,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  to  say  they  are  not  popular;  and  never 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  405 

since  Solon  himself  could  any  law  make  its  way  in  administration 
through  a  community  that  did  not  have  the  community  back  of  it. 

I  was  considering  the  proposition  that  is  advanced  on  the  other  side, 
that  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine  is  for  the  purpose  of  fraud,  and  that 
the  State  laws  are  ineffectual  to  protect  against  this  fraud.  I  had 
called  attention  to  the  fact,  as  I  had  believed  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  the 
coloring  of  oleomargarine  is  for  the  same  reason  that  there  is  coloring 
of  butter,  namely,  that  it  adds  to  the  palatability  of  the  article.  I  had 
read  from  what  Commissioner  Wilson  stated  before  the  House  com- 
mittee, and  what  Prof.  Wiley  stated  before  the  House  committee,  as  to 
the  eye  assisting  the  palate,  and  the  mental  attitude  of  the  consumer 
toward  that  which  he  was  eating,  and  so  on.  I  had  passed  on  to  point 
out  the  fact  that  complaint  is  made  here  that  the  State  laws  are  inef- 
fectual, and  that  the  reason  that  they  are  ineffectual  is  that  the  public 
opinion  is  not  behind  them.  They  are  not  popular.  The  poor  man 
feels  that  they  are  bearing  unduly  on  him.  He  is  being  compelled  to 
pay  25  cents  for  what  he  can  get  for  15  cents,  and  he  does  not  see  the 
reason  why.  It  is  an  unpopular  law.  The  public  heart  is  not  in  it,  and 
so  long  as  that  is  true  of  any  law  it  never  will  be  enforced. 

Referring  to  the  matter  of  color,  we  are  not  driven  to  mere  inference 
as  to  what  is  the  object  of  this  proposed  legislation.  The  purpose  of  it 
is  avowed.  I  have  been  following  the  proceedings  of  this  committee, 
and  I  have  observed  that  two  or  three  gentlemen  complained  that  they 
were  misrepresented  before  the  House  committee.  One  gentleman,  I 
believe,  did  claim  that  something  was  put  into  his  mouth  at  a  time  when 
he  said  there  was  no  stenographer  there,  and  another  gentleman  cor- 
rects something  that  he  is  reported  to  have  said.  I  am  going  to  give 
another  one  an  opportunity  to  correct  and  convict  the  stenographer. 
Mr.  James  Hewes,  president  of  the  Produce  Exchange  of  Baltimoreand 
vice  president  of  the  National  Dairy  Union  of  the  State  of  Maryland, 
when  he  was  before  that  committee  on  the  24th  day  of  last  March,  said 
in  so  many  words,  as  he  is  reported,  that  the  object  of  this  legislation 
is  "  to  tax  that  yellow  color;"  and  in  reply  to  an  interruption,  he  wound 
up  by  saying: 

If  you  will  put  it  under  your  close  supervision,  such  and  such  will  be  the  result. 
We  will  give  you  a  million  and  a  half  dollars  of  revenue,  and  we  ask  you  simply  to 
act  as  policemen. 

That  is  the  appeal  that  the  promoters  of  this  bill  are  making  to  this 
committee  and  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  avowedly,  leav- 
ing all  the  others  out  of  the  account.  This  man,  who  is  at  the  head  of 
the  produce  exchange  in  Baltimore  and  the  vice-president  of  the 
National  Dairy  Union  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  comes  before  the 
House  committee  and  avows  that  the  object  of  this  bill  is  to  tax  the 
yellow  color  and  make  the  United  States  their  policemen  to  see  that 
the  butter  industry  is  not  invaded. 

Now,  a  plainer,  more  open  appeal  for  class  legislation  I  never  heard. 
A  plainer,  more  open  appeal  for  the  violation  of  all  the  fundamental 
principles  of  our  institutions,  by  giving  protection  to  one  local  industry 
over  another  local  industry,  I  never  heard;  and  I  say,  apart  from  what 
is  to  be  got  here  by  reading  this  law  and  analyzing  it,  we  have  here 
the  avowed  purpose,  which  is  to  suppress  this  industry  and  to  tax  the 
color,  as  they  say. 

Now,  in  reply  to  your  question,  Senator  Dolliver,  about  the  color,, 
whether  the  butterine  men  or  oleomargarine  men  have  any  right  to 
appropriate  what  the  buttermen  having  been  using  for  so  long.     I 
have  read  these  proceedings  before  the  House  Committee  on  Agri- 


406  OLEOM  AEG  AEINE. 

culture--!  do  not  know  how  far  they  have  been  repeated  before  this 
committee — and  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  demonstrated 
by  the  testimony  of  all  concerned  that  artificial  coloring  was  an  inven- 
tion of  the  oleomargarine  men;  that  is,  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
now  done.  It  is  true  that  butter,  at  one  time  and  another,  took  on  this 
color,  and  carrots  and  the  like  were  resorted  to  to  give  the  winter  but- 
ter something  of  the  appearance  of  summer  butter.  It  yet  remained, 
however,  for  the  discoverers  of  oleomargarine  and  its  promoters  to  give 
rise  to  this  standard  butter  color  which  is  now  in  general  use,  so  that 
if  there  is  any  borrowing,  the  buttermen  have  done  the  borrowing. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  They  borrowed  the  ingredients,  but  I  doubt  if 
it  may  be  said  they  borrowed  the  color. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  They  did  not  borrow  the  principle  of  trying  to  make  but- 
ter in  winter  look  like  what  it  was  not.  They  are  the  initial  sinners,  I 
will  concede,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned;  but  they  could  not  do  it. 
They  did  not  have  the  natural  means  at  hand,  and  they  did  not  know 
how  to  do  it,  and  it  remained  for  the  oleomargarine  men  to  show  them 
how  to  make  butter  look  like  what  it  was  not  in  order  that  they  might 
work  it  off  on  the  public.  Let  us  take  our  full  share  of  blame — butter- 
men  and  oleomargarine  men  alike.  I  come  back  to  the  proposition  by 
answering  your  question  that  the  buttermen  have  no  vested  interest 
in  color  and  that  they  never  had,  for  while  they  were  on  the  way,  if  you 
please,  to  getting  that  device  so  well  advanced  as  to  be  commercial,  the 
oleomargarine  men  came  upon  the  scene  and  made  perfect  what  they 
were  tinkering  with;  and  if  anybody  is  entitled  to  the  credit  of  being 
in  the  field  first,  and  having  his  device  protected,  it  is  the  manufacturer 
of  oleomargarine. 

But  I  go  further  and  say  that  it  makes  no  difference  which  was  in  the 
field  first.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  not  any  right  to  tax 
a  color,  which  this  bill  asks  them  to  do,  and  confessedly  by  your  own 
question,  your  object  is  to  protect  the  buttermen.  If  you  say  it  is 
not,  then  I  ask  you  what  is  the  object?  If  the  object  is  to  prevent 
fraud,  I  have  answered  it  already.  The  people  are  not  behind  this  kind 
of  legislation,  and  you  can  not  administer  it  until  they  are  and  unless 
they  are. 

Senator  HANSBEOUGH.  You  say  the  people  are  not  behind  this  leg- 
islation ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  say  that  is  the  reason  the  State  laws  are  inefficient— 
because  it  is  not  popular. 

Senator  HANSBEOUGH.  Then  why  are  not  these  State  laws  repealed, 
a  portion  of  them?  Instead  of  that  there  is  an  increased  number. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Do  you  want  me  to  answer  that  question  plainly  and 
bluntly? 

Senator  HANSBEOUGH.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  too  much  money.  That  is  why  they  are  not  repealed. 
The  dairy  interest  is  too  big. 

Senator  HANSBEOUGH.  Too  much  money  on  the  butter  side? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  the  butter  side,  and  the  butter  trust;  and  the  but- 
ter interests  are  too  extensive  to  permit  of  a  repeal  of  these  laws, 
because  you  know  better  than  I  do,  as  you  live  in  a  State  and  are  in 
politics,  that  the  farmer  or  the  laborer  has  not  time  to  leave  his  work 
and  go  tagging  after  legislators. 

Senator  DOLLIVEE.  The  farmers  come  mighty  near  it  in  some  cases. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  I  know  that  about  certain  times  they  are  numerous, 
more  than  convenient  altogether.  But  how  do  you  account  for  the 
unanimous  opposition  of  the  federations  of  labor  to  this  bill? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  407 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  federations  of  labor  that  I  have  heard  here 
tell  a  very  curious  story.  They  state  that  in  western  Pennsylvania, 
where  the  cases  that  you  refer  to  were  tried,  invariably  everybody  who 
goes  into  these  stores  calls  for  butter  and  invariably  gets  oleomargarine; 
that  there  seems  to  be  a  sort  of  free  masonry  between  the  merchant 
and  the  customer. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  exactly  in  accord  with  what  I  am  saying.  It  is 
the  customer  that  will  not  let  the  law  be  enforced.  It  is  exactly  that; 
and  I  thank  you  for  recalling  that  to  me.  These  people  go  there  and 
"  wink  the  other  eye."  They  want  butterine  and  they  ask  for  butter. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  companies'  stores  in 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania  prefer  to  sell  oleomargarine  for  butter? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  not  informed  about  that,  sir. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Because  of  the  greater  profit. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  not  informed  on  that  point.  That  is  a  matter  that 
can  be  settled.  But  what  Senator  Dolliver  is  talking  about  is  not  the 
companies'  stores.  He  is  talking  about  the  stores  that  are  scattered 
all  throughout  the  western  part  of  Pennsylvania,  where  a  great  deal  of 
its  product  is  sold.  You  have  hit  it  exactly,  and  the  man  who  told  you 
that  has  hit  it.  The  customers  do  not  want  this  legislation  made. 
They  go  and  ask  for  butter,  and,  as  I  say,  they  wink  their  eye  and  they 
know  they  are  going  to  get  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  Senator  Hansbrough  will  permit  me,  the  company 
stores  in  Pennsylvania  would  like  to  handle  oleomargarine,  but  they 
do  not.  They  do  not  want  to  be  annoyed  with  the  regulations  and  the 
lawsuits ;  and  I  understand  there  is  also  a  State  tax  upon  retail  deal- 
ers of  $100  in  Pennsylvania,  $500  for  the  wholesale  dealer,  and  $1,000 
for  a  manufacturer,  in  addition  to  all  this  regulation  of  the  internal 
revenue. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Now,  I  do  say  that  it  is  an  open  insult  to  the  adminis 
tration  of  justice  in  the  States  for  men  to  come  here  before  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  and  ask  the  Senate  to  make  the  United  States  act 
as  policemen,  because  they  can  not  get  their  own  laws  enforced  by 
their  own  home  people;  and,  notoriously,  the  States  are  more  jealous 
of  the  enforcement  of  the  United  States  laws  than  they  are  of  laws  of 
their  own.  This  very  appeal  turns  on  itself  and  makes  a  demonstra- 
tion that  we  can  not  hope  to  enforce  a  law  like  this,  and  that  the  more 
stringent  your  regulations  are  in  point  of  money  penalty  the  greater 
temptation  you  are  holding  out  to  frauds  and  violations  of  the  law.  It 
is  not  a  matter  of  mere  conjecture  or  opinion  on  my  part. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Of  course,  the  States  can  not  tax  an  article 
of  commerce. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No.  But,  Senator,  it  is  conceded  by  the  men  themselves 
that  the  States  liave  enacted  laws  which  are  as  yet  untouched  by  any 
constitutional  decision  as  to  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
colored  oleomargarine,  and  yet  they  say  it  is  being  manufactured  and 
sold  colored.  You  can  not  stop  it.  That  is  the  point.  You  can  not 
stop  it.  You  can  not  stop  it  any  more — as  has  been  shown  by  the 
history  of  the  world — than  you  can  stop  anything  that  the  public  is 
determined  to  have. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  you  not  think  the  United  States  could  not 
collect  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  What  have  these  gentlemen  told  you  about  that?  Have 
they  not  told  you  that  the  United  States  internal-revenue  agents  are 
not  doing  their  duty? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Is  there  any  complaint  that  the  2-cent  tax  is  not 
collected  ? 


408  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Plenty  of  it,  but  without  foundation. 

Senator  HANSBROUGrH.  The  advocates  of  oleomargarine  here  have 
said  that  the  internal-revenue  officers,  in  the  matter  of  inspection  at 
the  several  factories,  are  doing  their  duty.  I  myself  very  much  ques- 
tion whether  they  do  their  whole  duty. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Senator  Hansbrough,  read  what  Mr.  Hewes  says  about 
the  United  States  attorney  in  the  city  of  Baltimore.  If  he  does  not 
come  right  to  the  edge  of  accusing  him  of  shutting  his  eyes  I  do  not 
know  the  English  language. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  have  rather  understood  these  gentlemen  to 
boast  of  their  law-abiding  disposition  in  respect  to  the  present  internal- 
revenue  laws. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  tell  you,  sir,  as  was  said  before  the  House  Committee, 
there  are  violations  of  this  law.  That  is  not  to  be  denied.  Nobody 
denies  it,  and  the  violations  of  this  law  are  induced  by  the  consumers. 
They  are  perpetrated  by  the  little  dealers,  and  they  can  not  be  perpe- 
trated without  some  sort  of  laxness. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  notice  that  there  is  a  factory  proposed  to  be 
capitalized  in  the  district  here  for  $1,000,000. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  You  do  not  believe,  since  these  factories  are  large 
institutions,  that  they  could  escape  the  internal-revenue  agents  in  the 
mere  matter  of  the  collection  of  the  tax  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  is  not  a  wholesaler  in  the  country  that  escapes; 
not  one.  That  is  not  the  point.  You  get  your  tax  all  right.  The  vio- 
lations are  made  in  the  sales,  as  they  say,  under  circumstances  making 
oleomargarine  a  competitor  with  butter.  You  get  the  tax  all  right. 
The  tax  is  paid  at  the  factory.  Nobody  makes  any  complaint  about 
that.  They  are  law  abiding,  and  the  Internal  Revenue  Commissioners 
will  tell  you  so.  Their  factories  are  open  to  inspection.  They  pay  their 
tax,  but  they  are  not  going  to  pay  any  10  cents  a  pound  and  keep  alive. 
I  say  you  are  going  to  invite  a  violation  of  the  law  where  it  never  has 
been  violated,  and  that  is  among  the  wholesalers,  and  you  are  going  to 
invite  a  further  violation  down  among  the  retailers,  because  the  profit 
is  so  much  greater  when  the  tax  is  10  cents  and  not  paid.  The  profit  is 
very  much  greater,  and  the  temptation  is  very  much  greater. 

But,  gentlemen,  I  take  these  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  if  I  may 
use  the  term,  on  their  own  dunghill.  What  do  they  mean  when  they 
tell  you  these  State  laws  are  not  enforced,  and  what  do  they  mean  when 
they  say  they  want  the  United  States  to  act  as  policemen?  They  must 
give  some  explanation  of  it.  If  these  laws  are  on  the  books,  why  don't 
they  repeal  them,  you  say.  What  is  the  use  of  repealing  them  when 
they  are  as  dead  as  Julius  Caesar,  and  that  is  their  own  cry.  Are  they 
dead  ?  There  is  only  one  of  two  answers.  One  is  that  there  is  a  deliber- 
ate blinking  at  the  violation  of  the  law,  and  the  other  is  that  the  public 
sentiment  is  too  strong.  How  is  your  State  anticolor  la\v  enforced  in 
Iowa? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  do  not  think  there  is  much  oleomargarine  sold 
out  there,  though  probably 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  have  had  a  law  on  the  books  since  1873,  and  how 
many  prosecutions  have  you  heard  of,  or  how  many  convictions  have 
you  heard  of  under  it? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  think  our  State  dairy  commission  out  there  does 
not  believe  there  is  much  sold  of  any  color.  You  see  we  are  in  the  heart 
of  the  butter  belt. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  think  there  is  a  document  giving  the  number 
of  pounds  sold  in  Iowa. 


OLEOMAKQAEINE.  409 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  there  is  a  statement  of  Judge  Springer  here,  I 
believe,  as  to  the  quantity  that  is  sold  out  there.  There  are  three  deal- 
ers, and  there  are  79,000  pounds  sold. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  Senator  Dolliver  will  permit  me,  I  will  say  that  before 
the  anticolor  law  was  passed  in  Iowa  there  was  quite  a  large  business 
done;  but  we  can  not  sell  uncolored  oleomargarine  in  Iowa,  and  there 
is  a  rigid  enforcement  of  the  law  against  colored  oleomargarine  there. 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  I  never  met  anyone  in  Iowa  who  wanted  to  purchase 
the  article,  because  there  would  be  very  little  difference  in  the  price  there. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  will  say  we  have  some  customers  who  buy  it  for  their 
own  use  in  some  of  the  towns  in  Iowa. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  will  try  to  relieve  the  committee  in  a  few  minutes.  I 
want  to  know  if  the  United  States  officials  are  going  to  do  any  better 
for  these  people  than  the  States'  officials  do,  except  in  the  one  particular 
in  which  the  United  States  can  help;  that  is,  the  collection  of  the  tax. 
If  you  say  yes  to  that,  and  that  that  is  the  only  way,  you  concede  at  once 
that  the  object  of  this  bill  is  to  suppress  the  industry.  There  is  no 
other  outcome  to  it.  I  put  it  to  you  thus :  If  the  laws  restricting  the 
fraudulent  sale  of  oleomargarine  can  not  be  enforced  by  the  States, 
they  can  not  be  enforced  by  the  United  States ;  and  if  for  the  reason 
that  they  are  not  enforced  and  can  not  be  enforced  by  the  States  this 
legislation  is  desired,  its  object  exclusively  is  to  reach  above  the  State 
laws  and  above  the  laws  which  have  merely  to  do  with  the  fraudulent 
violation  of  the  act  and  stop  the  sale  and  manufacture  of  oleomargarine ; 
and  I  protest  that  Congress  has  no  right  to  do  that  in  the  face  of  the 
decisions  to  which  I  have  asked  the  attention  of  the  committee. 

As  to  your  question  a  while  ago  about  the  color,  which  I  have  already 
answered  in  part,  I  protest  that  no  interest,  no  matter  how  long  it  has 
lived,  has  a  right  to  protection  against  a  newer  and  a  better  industry. 
It  is  the  fate  of  all  commerce  and  of  all  business  that  new  things  come 
in  and  push  out  the  old;  and  it  would  be  a  most  interesting  thing, 
indeed,  if  Congress  or  a  State  legislature  were  to  attempt  to  close  down 
a  shoe  factory  where  shoes  are  made  by  machinery  in  order  to  save  the 
village  shoemaker.  Why,  I  do  not  know  of  anything  that  has  impressed 
me  more  in  my  life  than  the  experience  that  I  have  been  through,  and 
that  you  have  been  through,  and  every  man  here  of  my  years  or  older 
has  been  through,  and  that  is  the  painful  experience  of  seeing  the 
gradual  destruction  of  the  country  village.  I  have  gone  through  Mary- 
land, around  this  city,  all  my  life.  I  can  recall  one  village  after  another 
through  which  as  a  boy  I  went  and  through  which  I  have  passed  only 
lately.  There  was  the  village  blacksmith,  the  village  tinker,  and  the 
village  carpenter,  and  the  village  tailor — name  them  all.  Who  is  left? 
Only  the  village  blacksmith,  because  as  yet  God  in  his  providence  has 
not  endowed  the  human  mind  with  sufficient  intelligence  to  shoe  a  horse 
by  machinery;  but  the  carpenter  is  gone,  because  the  manufacturers  of 
doors,  sashes,  and  blinds  have  taken  his  place.  The  tailor  is  gone, 
because  the  manufacturer  of  clothing  and  the  sellers  of  them  by  whole- 
sale have  taken  his  place.  The  tinker  is  gone,  for  the  same  reason ;  and 
so  through  the  list. 

Now,  what  would  have  been  thought  of  any  man  introducing  in  his 
legislature  a  bill  to  suppress  the  manufacture  of  shoes  at  Lynn,  Mass., 
because  the  village  cobblers  were  going  to  be  put  out  of  business? 
That  will  not  do.  A  very  apt  expression  on  that  subject  is  to  be  found 
in  the  language  of  Mr.  Justice  Peckhain,  in  the  case  of  The  United 
State's  v.  The  Freight  Association,  reported  in  166  U.  S.  I  read  from 
page  323.  This  is  one  of  the  trust  cases.  The  argument  was  pressed 


410  OLEOMARGARINE. 

on  the  court  that  every  trust  in  the  country  is  an  octopus,  reaching  out 
its  tentacles  and  strangling  industries,  and  all  that  sort  of  business; 
and  after  stating  the  business  very  plainly  and  bluntly,  the  court  says 
this  : 

In  any  great  and  extended  change  in  the  manner  or  method  of  doing  business  it 
seems  to  be  an  inevitable  necessity  that  distress  and  perhaps  ruin  shall  be  its  accom- 
paniment in  regard  to  some  of  those  who  were  engaged  in  the  old  methods.  A  change 
from  stagecoaches  and  canal  boats  to  railroads  threw  at  once  a  large  number  of  men 
out  of  employment;  changes  from  hand  labor  to  that  of  machinery,  and  from  opera- 
ting machinery  by  hand  to  the  application  of  steam  for  such  purposes,  leave  behind 
them  for  the  time  a  number  of  men  who  must  seek  other  avenues  of  livelihood. 
These  are  misfortunes  which  seem  to  be  the  necessary  accompaniment  of  all  great 
industrial  changes.  It  takes  time  to  effect  a  readjustment  of  industrial  life,  so  that 
those  who  are  thrown  out  of  their  old  employment  by  reason  of  such  changes  as  we 
have  spoken  of  may  find  opportunities  for  labor  in  other  departments  than  those  to 
which  they  have  been  accustomed. 

The  same  thing  exactly  is  true  of  industries.  When  an  industry 
comes  in  it  takes  the  place  of  another.  When  the  cotton  seersucker 
was  invented,  the  silk  seersucker  had  to  step  aside.  When  the  Paisley 
shawl  came  into  the  market  the  camel's-hair  shawl  had  to  take  a 
back  seat.  It  is  the  same  old  story.  It  has  been  so  ever  since  the 
beginning  of  industries.  It  is  simply  a  repetition  of  the  old  cry  that 
this  wholesome  and  nutritious  product,  which  is  the  poor  man's  butter, 
is  to  be  kept  out  of  the  market  and  its  manufacture  to  be  suppressed 
because  a  part  of  that  same  market  has  been  preempted  by  the  butter 
men.  I  protest  that  that  is  not  within  the  legislative  power.  Certainly 
it  is  not  within  the  legislative  wisdom,  and  I  think  it  is  not  within  its 
power  at  all. 

So  far  as  my  particular  clients  are  concerned — these  people  here  in 
the  District  of  Columbia — if  you  are  going  to  put  out  your  hands  in 
exercise  of  the  revenue  power,  say  so;  but  you  do  not  say  so;  tliis  bill 
does  not  say  so,  and  it  does  not  pretend  to  say  so,  and  it  does  not  mean 
so,  because,  as  I  have  already  said,  if  you  say  that  I  will  show  you  in  a 
minute  that  you  have  more  money  than  you  can  spend.  You  do  not 
need  this  money.  You  are  now  engaged  in  the  very  act  and  effort  of 
reducing  the  Government  revenues.  That  is  not  what  you  want.  If 
you  say  you  are  going  to  stop  this  particular  industry  here,  which 
will  be  the  one  most  nearly  affected,  because  you  are  exercising  the 
police  power,  I  ask  you,  Why?  Is  this  thing  detrimental  to  the  public 
safety  !  That  is  one  of  the  things  that  the  police  power  has  to  do  with. 
Is  it  detrimental  to  the  public  health  ?  The  Supreme  Court  tells  you 
that  it  is  not;  the  chemists  the  world  over  tell  you  that  it  is  not.  Is  it 
detrimental  to  the  public  morals?  How?  The  manufacturer  here  has 
to  pay  the  tax  like  everybody  else.  And  if  you  tell  me,  as  these  gentle- 
men say,  that  it  is  detrimental  to  the  public  morals  in  that  it  puts  a 
temptation  before  a  man  to  sell  something  for  what  it  is  not,  I  say  to 
you  in  perfect  earnestness  that  your  increasing  the  taxis  increasing 
that  temptation  instead  of  diminishing  it,  and  instead  of  helping  the 
public  morals  you  are  simply  doing  the  opposite. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  am  thankful  to  you  for  the  very  patient  attention 
you  have  given  to  me.  I  have  taken  a  longer  time,  perhaps,  than  you 
thought  was  necessary,  but  I  could  not  be  too  earnest  in  my  endeavor 
to  get  before  you  my  attitude  toward  this  matter.  I  could  not  be  to«» 
earnest  in  my  endeavor  to  convince  you,  as  I  believe  in  my  heart,  that 
this  is  a  very  vicious  piece  of  class  legislation  that  is  being  attempted 
here.  I  do  not  believe  it  to  be  constitutional,  for  the  reasons  that  I 
have  stated.  If  it  were  constitutional  [  would  believe  it  to  be  a  very 
unwise  act,  and  certainly  a  very  unjust  one;  and  with. respect  to  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  411 

industry  at  large,  and  certainly  with  respect  to  this  industry  which  I 
represent  here,  it  means  absolute  destruction;  and  that  means  not 
merely  the  forfeiture,  the  practical  confiscation,  of  large  sums  of  money, 
but  also  the  deprivation  of  employment  and  means  of  support  of  thou- 
sands of  people;  and  at  the  bottom  of  it  all  it  means  the  denial  to  the 
poorer  and  the  more  moderate  classes  of  an  article  of  food  that  they 
want;  that  they  have  a  right,  before  God  and  the  laws  of  this  land,  to 
have,  and  from  which  they  can  not  be  kept  except  by  what  I  am  con- 
strained to  characterize  as  an  abuse  of  legislative  power. 

1  thank  you  very  kindly. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  committee  is  very  much  obliged  to  you  for 
your  statements,  and  to  all  others  who  have  addressed  the  committee 
to-day,  and  if  nothing  further  is  to  be  suggested  the  committee  will  now 
adjourn. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Senator,  some  mention  was  made  about  Mr.  Tompkius. 
Mr.  Jelke  will  state  that. 

Mr.  JELKE.  A  gentlemen  from  Texas,  Mr.  Peters,  came  1,500  miles  to 
address  the  committee,  and  he  thought  he  would  be  heard  this  after- 
noon; but  on  account  of  Mr.  Davis  and  myself  occupying  the  time  he 
has  gone,  and  he  would  like  to  be  heard  for  a  short  time  in  the  morn- 
ing. Mr.  Tompkins  would  also  like  to  be  heard. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Let  them  report  here  in  the  morning  and  we  will 
determine  that  question. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Is  it  understood  that  the  advocates  of  the 
Grout  bill  are  to  occupy  to-morrow? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  think  that  is  the  understanding. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  And  that  the  meetings  will  end  then? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  was  the  understanding  with  Senator  Proctor. 

Senator  DOLLIVTER.  Will  you  require  all  of  to-morrow  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir;  we  certainly  shall,  and  that  will  be  very  short. 

Mr.  CTTLBERSON.  Mr.  Tompkius  wants  to  conclude  what  he  started 
to  say  to  the  committee. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  That  question  may  be  determined  to-morrow; 
but  in  the  meantime  it  may  be  said  that  written  arguments  can  be  filed 
with  the  stenographer  and  printed. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  understand  that  the  Secretary  of  Agricul- 
ture is  tobebefore  the  committee  to-morrow  morning  for  a  short  time,  and 
I  make  the  suggestion  that  if  this  gentleman  from  Texas  has  any  addi- 
tional information  to  lay  before  the  committee  he  might  put  it  in  writ- 
ing, because,  as  you  understand,  there  are  only  from  two  to  three 
members  of  the  committee  present  at  aey  one  time,  and  it  will  be  nec- 
essary before  we  can  consider  this  bill  to  have  all  the  committee  have 
these  proceedings  on  their  desks  and  examine  them. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  gentleman  from  Texas  has  not  been  before  the 
committee  at  all.  It  was  Mr.  Tompkins  who  started  his  remarks  and 
who  did  not  finish. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  think  it  would  be  well  to  advise  Mr.  Tompkins 
that  he  can  have  leave  to  file  a  supplemental  argument,  as  if  it  were 
delivered  before  the  committee. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Are  those  the  men  who  came  here  from  Texas, 
whom  Senator  Culberson  spoke  to  the  Chair  about? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Yes,  sir;  Mr.  Peters  is,  1  am  quite  sure. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  They  have  come  all  the  way  from  Texas  on  the 
assurance  that  they  will  be  heard. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  They  have  all  been  heard  except  one,  as  I 
understand. 


412  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Mr.  Peters  has  not  been  heard  at  all. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  were  two  gentlemen  here  who  stayed  almost  a 
week,  but  did  not  have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  and  they  have  left 
their  statements,  which  they  ask  to  be  filed. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  They  may  be  tiled  with  the  stenographer  and 
printed  with  the  proceedings. 

The  statements  referred  to  are  as  follows : 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  5, 1901. 

GENTLEMEN  :  I  hereby  respectfully  request  to  be  permitted  to  tile 
with  your  honorable  body,  to  be  printed  in  the  records,  the  indorse 
ment  of  the  Watertown  Produce  Exchange,  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
of  the  so  called  "Grout  bill."  That  board,  composed  of  a  large  num- 
ber of  representative  citizens  of  the  State  of  New  York,  through  me,  as 
their  delegate,  request  your  honorable  committee  to  report  the  said 
bill  favorably,  to  the  end  that  the  fraudulent  practices  now  in  vogue 
in  the  sale  and  use  of  oleomargarine  by  the  retailers  and  its  use  in 
hotels  and  restaurants  fraudulently  represented  as  butter  may  be 
stopped. 

This  board  would  not  favor  the  bill  if  its  only  object  were  to  drive 
competitors  out  of  the  market.  It  believes  firmly  in  giving  free  scope 
to  honest  competition,  but  it  believes  that  no  fraud  should  be  the 
vehicle  or  avenue  of  commerce  whatsoever,  and  it  therefore  believes 
that  this  is  a  question  worthy  the  notice  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  and  asks  that  your  honorable  body  provide  against  such  fraud 
by  the  enactment  of  this  measure  into  a  law. 

Respectfully,  W.  A.  ROGERS. 

The  COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE  AND  FORESTRY 

OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 


CHAIRMAN  COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE  AND  FORESTRY, 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN:  On  account  of  the  pressure  for  time  in  your  com- 
mittee by  those  conducting  the  oleomargarine  side  of  the  questions 
involved  in  the  Grout  bill,  I  have  been  unable  to  be  heard,  although  I 
have  been  present  here  for  nearly  a  week.  The  press  of  business  at 
home  demands  that  I  return.  I  therefore  beg  leave  to  lay  this  written 
communication  before  you,  to  the  end  that  a  few  facts  may  be  placed 
upon  record  relative  to  the  attitude  of  the  National  Grange  and  of  the 
State  Grange  of  the  State  of  New  York  in  the  matter  of  the  so  called 
"  Grout  bill." 

1 1  has  been  stated  by  those  opposed  to  this  bill  that  the  farmers  of 
this  country  are  not  interested  in  the  measure  and  do  not  want  it. 
The  National  Grange  represents  over  three  hundred  ihousand  agri 
culturists  of  the  United  States,  and  the  State  Grange  of  the  State  of 
New  York  represents  over  sixty  thousand,  and  yet  both  of  these  bodies, 
after  due  consideration  of  all  the  questions  involved,  passed  resolutions 
indorsing  the  said  bill  and  requesting  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  to  enact  it  into  a  law. 

I  am  master  of  the  State  Grange  of  the  State  of  New  York  and  a 
member  of  the  executive  and  legislative  committees  of  the  National 
Grange,  and  come  here  in  such  official  capacity  as  the  representative  of 


OLEOMARGARINE.  413 

both  these  bodies  to  urge  your  committee  in  their  interest  to  report 
favorably  the  said  bill  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  its  con- 
sideration, without  amendment  in  any  respect  whatever. 

The  Granges  of  the  United  States,  aside  from  any  financial  consider- 
ations in  their  own  interest,  believe  this  bill  should  be  enacted  into  a 
law,  because  they  believe : 

First.  That  oleomargarine  is  relatively,  if  not  entirely,  an  unhealthy 
product;  and 

Second.  That  it  is  a  fact  so  notorious  as  to  need  little  argument  that, 
while  producers  of  oleomargarine  in  the  first  instance  sell  it  for  such, 
hardly  a  pound  of  it  reaches  the  consumer  under  its  true  name  and  in 
its  true  guise.  It  is  almost  invariably  sold  as  and  for  butter,  and  in 
the  hotels,  restaurants,  and  boarding  houses  where  it  is  used  it  is  always 
served  as  butter. 

If  this  condition  of  things  is  allowed  to  continue  the  consuming  public 
will  be  forced  to  use  the  commodity,  whether  they  desire  to  do  so  or 
not.  Plainly,  this  state  of  things  ought  not  to  be.  In  the  isterests  ot 
mutual  integrity  in  commerce  and  justice  between  man  and  man  these 
goods  ought  to  be  placed  upon  the  market  in  such  guise  as  that  the 
consumer  may  be  notified  in  their  appearance  of  their  true  nature. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

E.  B.  NORRIS, 
Master  of  the  State  Grange  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  ask  permission  to  file  the  statement  of  Governor  Hoard 
at  this  time. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  That  may  be  done. 

The  statement  above  referred  to  is  as  follows : 

STATEMENT  OF  W.  D.  HOARD. 

This  law  is  demanded  in  the  interest  of  a  broad  public  policy,  for 
the  protection  of  legitimate  industry  against  illegitimate  counterfeiting 
and  fraud.  Compare  the  policy  pursued  by  the  United  States  with  that 
of  Canada.  The  Dominion  government  guards  the  purity  and  honesty 
of  her  dairy  products  to  the  extent  of  absolute  prohibition  of  any  adul- 
teration or  counterfeiting  of  the  same.  As  a  result  her  export  of 
cheese  to  England  alone  has  grown  in  twenty  years  from  $3,000,000  to 
$20,000,000,  while  ours  has  declined  nearly  the  same  amount,  because 
we  did  not  place  the  strong  hand  of  the  law  on  the  adulterated  product, 
tilled  cheese,  until  wre  had  lost  the  confidence  of  the  foreign  consumer. 

Denmark  sells  $30,000,000  of  butter  abroad  annually.  Do  you  think 
that  Government  would  allow  her  commerce  in  butter  to  be  endangered 
by  the  shipment  to  foreign  consumers  of  a  counterfeit  butter?  Not  so. 
The  Danish  Government  rigorously  prohibits  the  exportation  of  oleo- 
margarine. Here  are  two  conspicuous  examples  of  two  nations  who 
have  guarded  well  the  reputation  of  their  dairy  products  and  exports, 
and  well  have  they  thrived  by  it. 

This  law  is  needed  in  the  interest  of  the  promotion  of  honesty  and 
fair  dealing  in  our  own  home  markets.  This  is  a  policy  of  taxing 
heavily  a  traffic  which  flourishes  by  deception.  Two  benefits  will 
accrue  to  American  society  by  the  passage  of  this  law.  Cheating,  both 
of  the  producer  and  consumer  ot  butter,  will  be  lessened,  and  the  burden 
of  taxation  correspondingly  shifted  from  the  shoulders  of  honest  and 
legitimate  industry.  It  is  time  the  Federal  Government  instituted  a 
vigorous  policy  in  this  direction.  It  has  no  right  to  stand  before  the 


414  OLEOMARGARINE. 

conscience  of  the  people  and  excuse  itself  for  not  distinguishing  between 
legitimate  and  illegitimate  industry  and  enterprise  in  the  burden  of 
taxation  which  is  laid.  The  Government  has  the  power  in  this  way  to 
discourage  wrongdoing  and  encourage  honest  industry,  and  the  people 
will  hold  it  responsible  for  the  exercise  of  that  power  when  the  oppor- 
tunity comes,  as  in  the  present  case.  I  ask,  can  the  Senate  of  the 
United  State,  can  any  Senator,  afford  to  deny  to  the  great  dairy  interests 
of  this  country  this  prayer  for  relief  from  competition  with  an  acknowl- 
edged counterfeit  and  fraud? 

The  committee  (at  5  o'clock  p.  m.)  adjourned  until  Thursday,  January 
10, 1901,  at  10.30  a.  m. 


COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE  AND  FORESTRY, 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 
Washington,  D.  <7.,  January  10,  1901. 
The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Proctor  (chairman),  Allen,  Dolliver,  and  Money; 
also,  Hon.  William  M.  Springer,  Charles  Y.  Knight,  Mr.  H.  E.  Adams, 
Mr.  Schell,  Mr.  Tilliughast,  Mr.  Culbersou,  Mr.  Miller,  and  others. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Secretary  of  Agriculture  is  here  this  morning, 
and  we  shall  be  glad  now  to  have  him  proceed,  if  he  will. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  JAMES  WILSON,  SECRETARY  OF  AGRI 

CULTURE. 

GENTLEMEN:  In  response  to  the  courteous  invitation  of  your  chair- 
man, I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  comments  upon  the 
so-called  "Grout  bill,"  now  under  consideration  by  your  committee 
(being  H.  R.  3717,  entitled  "An  act  to  make  oleomargarine  and  other 
imitation  dairy  products  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  State  or  Territory 
into  which  they  are  transported,  and  to  change  the  tax  on  oleomar- 
garine"). 

From  my  examination  of  this  bill  and  the  attention  I  have  been  able 
to  give  it,  I  understand  the  proposition  to  be  to  apply  the  powers  of  the 
Government  in  regulating  interstate  commerce  and  taxation  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  counterfeiting  and  fraud  in  an  important  article 
of  food  and  for  assisting  the  several  States  in  the  exercise  of  their 
police  powers  to  the  same  end.  This  object  of  promoting  and  enforc- 
ing honesty  and  purity  in  food  products  nas  my  full  sympathy.  It 
seems  to  furnish  the  main  argument,  and  a  sufficient  one,  for  the  enact- 
ment of  the  proposed  law. 

Although  the  act  aproved  August  2, 1886,  has  served  well  to  identify 
oleomargarine  and  prevent  deception  on  the  part  of  merchants  gen- 
erally, it  has  not  furnished  adequate  protection  to  producers  and  con- 
sumers. It  must  be  admitted  that  for  the  latter  State  laws  have  been 
far  more  effective.  In  States  which  have  not  only  stringent  laws,  but 
which  have  provided  efficient  machinery,  the  element  of  fraud  in  but- 
ter and  its  substitutes  has  been  reduced  to  a  minimum.  In  all  the  States 
which  have  made  earnest  efforts  to  protect  consumers  the  most  serious 
obstacle  has  been  the  introduction  of  colored  oleomargarine  in  original 
packages.  Hence,  I  deem  the  first  section  of  this  bill  of  pressing  impor- 
tance. There  ought  to  be  no  question  of  its  propriety,  expediency,  and 
strict  justice,  and  there  seems  to  me  every  reason  to  believe  that  such  a 
law  will  be  most  salutary  in  its  result. 


OLEOMAKGAKIKE  415 

The  increase  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  this 
country  during  the  past  twenty  years  has  been  very  rapid.  The  latest 
reports  show  a  total  production  of  83,000,000  pounds,  and  as  only  about 
3,000,000  pounds  are  exported,  the  domestic  consumption  is  in  excess 
of  1  pound  per  capita,  as  against  an  estimated  consumption  of  1S£ 
pounds  of  butter.  These  figures  are  in  marked  contrast  with  those  of 
some  foreign  countries.  For  example,  the  per  capita  consumption  per 
annum  in  Great  Britain  is  supposed  to  be  3J  pounds  of  oleomargarine, 
and  15  pounds  of  butter,  and  in  Denmark  the  consumption  is  15J  pounds 
of  oleomagarine  and  20  pounds  of  butter.  But  while  in  these  foreign 
countries  the  element  of  substitution  and  fraud  has  been  largely  elimi- 
nated, and  margarine  is  generally  bought  and  consumed  knowingly 
and  under  its  right  name,  it  is  understood  that  in  this  country  a  very 
large  part  of  the  oleomargarine  used  is  believed  by  the  consumers  to 
be  genuine  butter.  This  deception  is  made  possible  by  the  custom  of 
coloring  the  substitute  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter.  Without  this  col- 
oring feature  it  would  be  impossible  to  deceive  consumers  to  such  an 
extent.  Hence,  it  is  the  purpose  of  this  bill  to  so  exercise  the  taxing 
power  of  the  Government  as  to  render  the  counterfeit  product  unprofit- 
able, and  thus  protect  genuine  butter  and  prevent  existing  fraud. 

While  generally  believed  that  nearly  all  the  oleomargarine  used  in 
the  United  States  is  artificially  colored  and  that  a  very  large  part  of 
it  is  actually  consumed  under  the  belief  that  it  is  butter,  statistics 
upon  these  interesting  points  are  not  available.  It  appears,  however, 
from  official  reports  that  in  States  where  numerous  prosecutions  have 
been  made  under  the  so-called  oleo  laws  the  great  majority  of  cases 
have  included  proof  of  oleo  sales  as  and  for  butter.  In  compliance 
with  a  resolution  of  Congress  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  fur- 
nished a  statement  showing  the  quantity  of  oleomargarine  shipped 
into  the  respective  States  during  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30, 1899. 
From  this  it  appears  that  nearly  four-fifths  of  the  product  went  into 
States  which  are  known  to  have  laws  prohibiting  the  sale  of  the  col- 
ored article.  If  this  oleomargarine  was  sold  in  compliance  with  the 
State  laws,  it  was  not  artificially  colored,  and  hence  the  proposed  dis- 
criminating tax  upon  colored  oleo  could  be  no  hardship  upon  the  manu- 
facture, so  far  as  this  large  proportion  of  the  trade  is  concerned.  And 
if  this  78  per  cent  was  sold  without  color,  it  seems  reasonable  to 
assume  that  the  consumers  of  the  remaining  22  per  cent  (or  the  col- 
ored part  of  it)  could  easily  be  educated  to  use  the  uncolored  product. 
But  if  the  78  per  cent  of  the  domestic  trade  was  largely  colored,  it 
was  manifestly  sold  in  direct  violation  of  State  laws,  and  this  fact  fur- 
nishes sufficient"  evidence  of  the  need  of  further  action  to  aid  in  the 
enforcement  of  these  salutary  laws. 

Considering  the  provisions  of  the  second  section  of  the  bill  as  a  whole, 
I  do  not  see  why  it  should  be  opposed  by  oleomargarine  manufacturers 
and  merchants.  If  the  higher  tax  upon  the  product  when  colored  in 
imitation  of  yellow  butter  serves,  as  it  is  hoped,  to  prevent  deception 
and  fraud,  that  must  be  a  satisfaction  to  all  who  believe  in  honesty  in 
production  and  trade,  as  well  as  among  consumers.  This  discriminat- 
ing tax  may  interfere  for  a  time  with  the  market  for  oleo  by  diminishing 
the  sales  of  the  colored  article. 

The  dairy  cow  is  the  most  valuable  agent  of  the  producer,  and  her 
milk  is  one  of  nature's  perfect  rations.  She  gives  profitable  employ- 
ment to  all  who  care  for  her  or  her  products.  She  gathers  her  food 
from  the  fields  without  intervening  help  in  summer,  and  turns  cheap 
forage  into  high  selling  products  in  winter.  The  grasses  that  grow  for 


416 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


her  in  her  pasture  return  humus  to  woru-out  lands,  enabling  them  to 
retain  moisture  and  resist  droughts,  in  addition  to  inviting  nitrogen 
from  the  atmosphere  through  the  agency  of  the  legumes  upon  which 
she  grazes.  She  is  the  mother  of  the  steer  that  manufactures  beef 
from  grasses,  grains,  and  the  by-products  of  the  mills. 

******* 

The  farmer  who  keeps  a  herd  of  dairy  cows  returns  through  the  herd 
to  the  soil  all  the  crops  he  gathers  from  it,  except  the  products  of  skill 
that  take  little  plant  food  from  the  soil.  The  lint  of  cotton  and  the  fine 
flour  of  wheat  are  among  our  leading  exports,  and  take  little  from  the 
soil;  the  fats  of  the  cow  and  the  plants  take  nothing  whatever.  The 
cow  and  her  calf  are  prime  necessities  in  reclaiming  worn  out  land. 
The  cotton-growing  States  that  have  reduced  fertility  by  too  much 
cropping  can  bring  back  the  strength  of  the  soil  by  growing  the  graz- 
ing plants  and  feeding  the  meal  of  cotton  seed  to  the  dairy  cow  and 
her  calf,  but  the  farmers  of  no  part  of  our  country  can  afford  to  keep 
cows  for  the  sole  purpose  of  raising  calves,  except  free  commoners  on 
the  public  domains,  whose  privileges  are  being  contracted  to  such  an 
extent  by  injudicious  grazing  that  every  year  fewer  cattle  are  found 
on  the  ranges  of  the  semiarid  States. 

The  meats  to  feed  our  people  in  future  must  come,  in  large  measure, 

from  the  high-priced  farms  east  of  the  one  hundredth  meridian  of  west 

longitude.    The  feeding  steers  will  be  bred  on  those  farms  from  the 

dairy  cows  that  are  now,  and  will  become  more  and  more,  a  necessity. 

******* 

Population  is  increasing  faster  than  cattle  in  the  United  States,  as 
the  following  table  will  show : 


Census  year. 

Number  of 
all  cattle. 

Population. 

Number  of 
cattle  per 
100  of  popu- 
lation. 

1850                              

17  778  907 

23  191  876 

76  7 

I860  

25  620  019 

31  443  321 

81  5 

1870 

23  820  608 

38  558  371 

61  8 

1880  

35  925  511 

50  155  783 

71  6 

1890 

51  363  572 

62  622  250 

82 

1900  .         ...                

43  902  414 

76*  295*  220 

57  5 

Demand  in  our  island  possessions  for  meats  will  increase,  and 
demand  abroad  will  call  for  more  of  the  product  of  the.  cow  that  is 
only  profitable  when  placed  in  the  dairy.  Dairying  will  increase  in  the 
mountain  States  as  homesteaders  take  possession  of  lands  on  which  to 
raise  families,  and  it  will  increase  in  the  cotton-growing  States  as 
farmers  realize  the  necessity  of  rotation  of  crops,  and  the  increase  of 
grazers  and  feeders  that  come  through  this  industry.  The  benefit  that 
comes  to  the  cotton  grower  through  the  sale  of  a  little  oil  to  be  used  in 
making  oleomargarine  is  very  small  compared  with  the  dairying  and 
feeding  that  must  be  increased  to  use  the  by-product  of  the  cotton- 
seed mills,  and  the  consequent  return  to  the  soil  of  this  most  valuable 
of  all  mill  feeds  and  fertilizers.  The  best  interests  of  the  cotton-seed 
belt  lie  in  increasing  its  dairy  and  feeding  interests,  rather  than  in 
contributing  a  little  oil  toward  the  serious  injury  of  dairying  and  feed- 
ing, that  should  use  all  the  cotton -seed  meal  produced  there. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  417 

A  10,000,000-bale  crop  of  cotton  gives  5,000,000  tons  of  seed.  Two 
hundred  and  twenty-five  million  gallons  of  oil  from  this  seed  may  be 
sold  without  injury  to  the  soil  upon  which  the  plant  grows,  but  the 
residue  should  not  be  exported.  The  sale  from  the  land  of  this  nitrog- 
enous by  product  results  in  shorter  crops  and  ultimate  sterility,  which, 
however,  may  be  arrested  by  encouraging  dairying  and  feeding  for 
meats. 

******* 

There  is  an  impression  abroad  that  the  oleomargarine  industry  is  as 
legitimate  and  praiseworthy  as  making  butter  from  the  cow.  As  far  as 
the  making  of  oleo  oil,  to  be  sold  as  such,  is  concerned,  there  is  no  con- 
troversy, but  that  the  mixture  of  ingredients  that  compose  oleomargarine 
is  as  healthy  as  the  butter  from  milk  of  the  cow  nobody  who  has  inquired 
into  both  can  believe.  The  flavor  of  butter,  a  prime  element  in  palatabil- 
ity  and  digestibility,  comes  from  bacteria  universally  present  whenever 
milk  is  exposed  to  the  atmosphere.  Fine  butter  has  a  fine  flavor,  one 
of  its  principal  characteristics.  Bacteria  feed  upon  casein,  an  element 
not  found  in  vegetable  fats  nor  in  the  tallow  of  animals.  The  imitation 
of  butter  known  as  oleomargarine  is  washed  in  milk  in  order  that  some 
of  the  casein  may  be  present  as  the  basis  of  the  flavor.  The  imitation, 
in  as  far  as  it  varies  from  genuine  butter,  lacks  both  the  flavor  that 
comes  from  a  full  complement  of  casein  and  the  digestibility  natural  to 
the  cow's  product.  It  is  well  known  that  the  scalding  of  milk  kills  the 
bacterial  growth,  after  which  it  will  keep  longer,  but  its  digestibility 
is  greatly  impaired.  Butter  for  immediate  consumption  is  but  slightly 
worked,  so  that  the  leaving  within  it  of  a  considerable  amount  of  casein 
will  grow  bacteria  and  develop  flavor.  If  it  is  to  be  consumed  in  a 
week  it  is  worked  over  more,  and  if  within  two  weeks  still  more.  If  it 
is  to  be  kept  for  months  the  buttermilk  with  the  casein  is  thoroughly 
worked  out,  unless  it  is  to  be  put  in  cold  storage  and  kept  at  a  tem- 
perature at  which  bacteria  will  not  multiply. 

Milk  contains  a  ferment  that  changes  casein  into  a  digestible  nutri- 
ent. The  imitation  of  butter  made  by  the  chemist  is  a  mixture  of  fats 
that  should  be  sold  for  what  it  is.  It  is  not  as  palatable  nor  as  digesti- 
ble nor  as  grateful  to  the  human  system.  The  digestible  juices  flow  freely. 
When  palatable  food  is  eaten,  the  mouth  waters.  Oils  and  fats  as 
such  have  their  uses,  but  the  coloring  of  them  deceives  the  people  and 
induces  a  consumption  as  liberal  as  with  butter,  which,  while  not  so 
injurious  to  people  in  full  vigor  as  to  children  and  invalids,  is  nevertheless 
undoubtedly  harmful.  The  yellow  coloring  of  butter  iti  winter,  when 
it  has  a  light  shade,  if  green  cured  hay  or  roots  are  not  used,  deceives 
nobody.  The  yellow  coloring  of  a  mixture  of  fats  is  with  intent  to 
deceive. 

The  present  law  is  not  well  enforced ;  it  is  evidently  difficult  of  enforce- 
ment. The  effacement  of  marks  and  brands  is  easily  done.  The  great- 
est sufferers  are  the  poorer  classes  and  consumers  who  have  not  the 
opportunity  to  select  their  food.  If  there  were  no  coloring  there  would 
be  no  fraud.  The  most  intelligent  are  deceived,  however,  with  good 
imitations,  and  from  careful  inquiry  I  am  satisfied  that  most  of  us  are 
using  the  bogus  product  at  greatly  increased  expense  over  the  price  of 
the  oils  of  commerce,  and  with  danger  to  health  from  the  less  digest- 
ible and  less  palatable  imitation. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  If  the  Secretary  will  allow  me,  I  would  like  to  ask  him 
just  one  question.  You  speak  of  the  majority  of  oleomargarine  that 
is  produced  being  sold  and  palmed  off  upon  the  consummer  for  butter. 
I  would  like  to  know  upon  what  basis  you  reason  out  that  conclusion. 

S.  Rep.  2043 27 . 


418  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Did  you  listen  to  my  reading? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Yes. 

Secretary  WILSON.  You  will  find  it  in  there. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  would  like  to  ask  further,  if  you  know  from  your 
own  experience  or  from  the  reports  that  ha^e  come  to  you  of  a  single 
case  where  the  consumer  has  ever  been  prosecuted  because  of  being 
defrauded  by  the  dealer  ? 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  can  find  plenty  of  such  cases  in  this  very  city. 
The  great  difficulty  comes  in  a  provision  of  the  internal-revenue  law 
that  permits  compromising.  The  more  compromising  there  is  done  by 
the  Internal  Eevenue  Bureau  the  more  money  they  have  for  use  in  their 
Bureau.  I  have  inquired  very  carefully  into  the  behavior  of  people  of 
this  District,  and  it  has  been  exceedingly  difficult  to  get  revenue  peo- 
ple to  take  cases  through  the  courts.  There  is  no  question  about  the 
everyday  deception  of  us  people  who  have  to  buy  butter. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Were  you  through  answering  the  question,  Mr. 
Secretary? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Will  you  permit  me  a  question? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes;  certainly. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Have  you  inquired  into  the  effect  the  passage  of 
this  bill  will  have  upon  the  value  of  animals  raised  for  food  purposes, 
not  for  dairy  purposes. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Very  carefully. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  will  be  the  effect  of  the  passage  of  this  bill 
on  that  class  of  animals? 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  tried  to  reason  that  in  my  short  paper  which 
I  have  read.  There  is  a  little  oil  furnished  by  cotton- seed  people,  and 
a  little  by  the  people  who  grow  steers;  but  the  old-fashioned  steer  that 
had  lots  of  fat  in  him  is  not  the  steer  that  is  used  to-day.  The  young 
beef,  under  2  years  of  age,  put  into  the  market  and  prepared  for  the 
shambles,  is  not  an  animal  that  produces  much  body  or  intestinal  fat. 
That  is  the  animal  that  is  wanted  to-day. 

The  old-fashioned  steer  that  was  3 J  years  old  before  he  got  to  market 
had  a  large  amount  of  fat,  running  up  in  some  cases  to  150  and  as  high 
as  180  pounds. 

Now,  then,  the  tendency  in  the  South,  where  they  have  destroyed 
the  lands  by  perpetual  cropping,  and  the  tendency  west  of  the  Missouri, 
in  the  semidry  belt,  where  they  are  destroying  the  grazing  lands  by 
injudicious  overgrazing,  is  to  take  greater  interest  in  the  dairy  cow 
than  in  the  steer,  and  in  the  case  of  settlers  who  want  to  raise  families 
out  west  of  fhe  one  hundredth  meridian  the  interest  grows  every  day  on 
behalf  of  the  dairy  cow,  and  with  regard  to  the  production  of  steers  east 
of  the  Missouri  Kiver  on  the  farms  there  is  no  comparison  whatever. 
The  small  amount  of  cattle  that  commerce  calls  for  in  making  oleomar- 
garine is  infinitesimal  in  value  compared  with  the  injury  that  the  growth 
of  this  bogus  industry  will  inflict  upon  legitimate  agriculture  that 
requires  a  dairy  cow. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  meat-growing  country  of  this  section  of  the 
country  is  west  of  the  Missouri,  is  it  not? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Oh,  no.  I  made  careful  inquiry  into  the  condi- 
tion of  the  ranges  and  their  capacity  to  support  animals  a  year  ago  last 
summer,  and  I  found  in  two  States,  where  I  made  particular  inquiry, 
Wyoming  and  Nevada,  high-lying,  dry  States,  that  they  do  not  support 
now  more  than  50  per  cent  of  the  animals  they  supported  ten  years  ago. 
The  ranges  are  being  destroyed  by  injudicious  overgrazing  with  sheep, 


OLEOMARGARINE.  419 

and  the  meat  products  of  the  country  are  being  prepared  in  the  Missis- 
sippi Valley,  east  of  the  Missouri  Biver,  more  and  more.  A  dairy  is  an 
absolute  necessity  on  the  farms  now.  because  while  the  man  who  is  a 
free  commoner  on  the  ranges  could  afford  to  keep  a  cow  for  a  calf,  those 
east  of  the  Missouri  can  not. 

Senator  ALLEN.  But  the  great  herds  of  this  country  are  west  of  the 
Missouri,  are  they  not? 

Secretary  WILSON.  They  were  west  of  the  Missouri,  but  the  decrease 
in  the  number  of  cattle  is  due,  to  a  great  extent,  to  the  destruction  of 
the  grazing  west  of  the  Missouri  Eiver  and  the  contraction  of  the  num- 
ber of  stock  there. 

Senator  MONEY.  Will  you  allow  me  to  ask  a  question,  Mr.  Secretary? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  express  yourself  favorably  in  your  paper  to  the 
provision  that  prevents  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine.  Would  you  also 
favor  a  provision  in  the  bill  that  would  prevent  the  coloring  of  butter? 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  have  had  that  question  asked  me  before  and 
have  thought  a  great  deal  about  it.  The  reply  is  simply  this :  The  col- 
oring of  butter  in  the  winter  time  deceives  nobody.  The  coloring  of 
the  fats  of  commerce  to  make  an  imitation  deceives  everybody. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  testimony  here  has  been  that  there  are  several 
grades  of  butter,  as  well  as  of  oleomargarine,  and  there  is  a  grade  of 
butter  which  is  denominated  by  some  "renovated"  and  by  some  "  res- 
urrected "butter,  and  they  said  that  it  was  white,  sour,  rancid,  and  had 
a  great  many  other  obnoxious  features  to  it;  that  it  had  goue  through 
a  certain  process  of  ladling;  that  a  little  oil  was  added  to  it,  and  differ- 
ent things  that  go  into  the  composition  of  oleomargarine  were  added  to 
it,  and  then  the  coloring.  Does  that  deceive  anybody? 

Secretary  WILSON.  It  does. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  then  favor  putting  in  a  clause  here  that  will 
prevent  everybody  from  coloring  butter? 

Secretary  WILSON.  No,  I  would  not.  I  would  have  no  objection  to  a 
clause  which  would  prevent  the  coloring  of  renovated  butter.  Cow 
butter  is  naturally  yellow. 

Senator  MONEY.  This  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  as  I  under- 
stand, is  a  lawful  industry,  is  it  not? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Oh,  there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Senator  MONEY.  Now,  the  testimony  of  experts  here  has  been  that 
it  is  nutritious  and  wholesome. 

Secretary  W^ILSON.  Yes ;  I  know  what  your  testimony  has  been  here. 
That  is  the  testimony  of  the  chemists. 

Senator  MONEY.  And  also  the  physicians. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  am  giving  you  the  testimony  of  practical 
knowledge. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  what  the  manufacturers  said  also.  The 
testimony  has  also  been  that  there  has  been  no  deception  on  the  part 
of  the  manufacturer  toward  the  wholesale  dealer,  and  no  deception  on 
the  part  of  the  wholesale  dealer  toward  the  retail  dealer,  but  the 
deception  comes  or  is  practiced  upon  the  consumer  to  some  extent  by 
the  retail  dealer.  In  view  of  that,  are  you  justified  in  calling  it  a  bogus 
industry  ? 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  am.  You  and  I  need  protection,  Senator,  and 
we  ought  to  have  it. 

Senator  MONEY.  We  do  not.    We  need  letting  alone. 

Secretary  WILSON.  We  are  eating  that  bogus  article  on  our  tables 
every  day  unless  we  are  sure  we  send  to  a  creamery  and  get  the  genuine 
article. 


420  OLEOMAKGABINE. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  never  know  that  I  have  got  the  genuine  article 
except  when  I  go  home. 

Secretary  WILSON.  After  living  a  winter  in  Washington  and  eating 
bogus  butter  our  taste  becomes  vitiated.  Some  of  the  first-class  hotels 
and  first-class  restaurants  here  do  get  first-class  butter  from  reputable 
dealers,  but  the  majority  of  them  use  oleomargarine. 

Senator  MONEY.  If  we  are  all  eating  bogus  butter  and  we  can  not  tell 
it  by  the  taste  and  we  can  not  tell  it  by  the  color  and  we  can  not  tell  it 
by  the  effect,  what  harm  has  happened  to  anybody? 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  bogus  butter  deceives  you  in  your  pocket- 
book.  It  costs  you  far  more  than  it  should.  There  is  where  the  trouble 
comes.  It  costs  you  too  much. 

Senator  MONEY.  Would  I  get  the  fine-grade  butter  any  cheaper  if  we 
abolish  oleomargarine? 

Secretary  WILSON.  If  you  abolish  the  coloring  proposition.  I  would 
not  abolish  oleomargarine.  The  manufacture  of  that  is  legitimate,  but 
the  moment  you  buy  it  you  are  deceived  by  somebody.  We  are  not 
the  men  who  select  the  butter  that  we  eat  if  we  board  at  a  hotel  or 
boardinghouse,  and  the  boarding-house  man  can  deceive  us  and  he  does. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  am  afraid  he  does  sometimes,  and  I  am  also  afraid 
we  are  deceived  in  a  great  many  other  things.  I  think  in  the  bread 
we  eat  we  get  a  fair  amount  of  terra  alba. 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  may  be,  but  we  are  dealing  with  butter 
just  now. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  know,  but  there  is  not  a  solitary  thing  we  eat  or 
drink,  including  the  whisky  that  some  of  us  drink — I  do  not — that  is 
not  poisoned  in  some  way.  We  get  cabbage  leaves  in  bright  wrappers 
for  cigars;  and  a  young  man  traveling  on  the  train  with  me,  who  intro 
duced  himself  to  me  last  March,  said  that  in  a  great  manufacturing 
establishment  in  Cleveland,  Ohio,  manufacturing  all  kinds  of  table 
delicacies — pickles,  marmalades,  flavoring  extracts,  etc. — there  was  only 
one  genuine  thing  in  the  whole  line  that  could  not  be  imitated,  and 
they  had  been  trying  to  imitate  that. 

Secretary  WILSON.  If  the  commerce  among  the  States  regarding 
foods  is  not  regulated,  we  will  become  like  some  nations  in  Europe  by 
and  by.  We  will  be  unable  to  reproduce  ourselves. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  next  thing  we  know  we  will  not  be  able  to  eat 
anything  without  getting  sick  from  it. 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  is  not  the  proposition,  Senator  Money.  It 
is  illustrated  by  a  story  in  one  of  Sir  Walter  Scott's  novels,  where  a 
fellow  built  a  castle  on  an  island  in  the  middle  of  a  lake.  Everybody 
said  that  the  man  that  built  that  castle  was  a  thief  in  his  heart.  The 
man  who  manufactures  oleomargarine  and  colors  it  intends  to  deceive. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  about  the  man  who  colors  the  poor  butter; 
is  he  a  thief  also  ? 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  renovated  butter  is  as  much  of  a  swindle 
as  oleomargarine. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  about  the  butter  man  that  takes  the  color 
that  is  used  in  oleomargarine  and  puts  it  in  his  butter,  high  grade  or 
low  grade? 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  can  not  admit  your  premises  there. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  what  I  am  told. 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  cow  made  yellow  butter  before  chemistry 
was  discovered. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  know  that  some  cows  do. 

Secretary  WILSON.  All  cows  do. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  421 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  not  my  experience,  though. 

Secretary  WILSON.  If  you  feed  cows  iu  the  winter  time  green-cured 
hay,  or  sugar  beets,  or  mangles,  or  carrots,  you  color  your  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  believe  they  used  to  color  butter  with  carrots 
after  it  was  made,  after  the  cow  had  ceased  to  perform  her  part  of  the 
function. 

Secretary  WILSON.  There  is  no  difficulty  about  having  naturally 
colored  butter.  It  is  colored  by  the  grass  in  summer.  That  is  nature's 
way,  and  when  you  imitate  nature  you  are  probably  not  going  very 
far  wrong ;  but  we  do  not  know  enough  about  milk,  any  of  us  yet,  to  be 
able  to  form  a  substitute  that  will  stay  on  the  stomach  the  same  as 
butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  Did  I  understand  you  correctly  awhile  ago — I  do 
not  know  that  I  did— in  the  reading  of  your  very  clear  paper,  to  say 
that  you  favor  bacteria  as  an  agent  for  producing  digestible  food! 

Secretary  WILSON.  No ;  the  position  I  take  is  this :  When  you  draw 
milk  from  the  cow,  the  moment  you  expose  it  nature  has  bacteria  germs 
falling  into  it. 

Senator  MONEY.  Exactly. 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  is  the  flavoring  agent. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  want  to  maintain  that  flavoring  agent,  do  you? 
In  other  words,  do  you  want  the  bacteria  in  the  milk  ? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Nature  has  arranged  that.  Without  that  you 
can  not  get  any  flavor,  and  the  oleomargarine  men,  knowing  that,  wash 
their  product  in  skim  milk. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  true;  but  do  they  not  heat  that  product  to 
such  a  degree  that  it  is  absolutely  fatal  to  all  sorts  of  germs  ? 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  do  not  know  what  they  always  do. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  what  they  do. 

Secretary  WILSON.  If  they  do,  then  there  is  no  element  to  make  a 
flavor,  and  without  a  fine  flavor  digestibility  is  not  as  good. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  do  not  want  any  germ  flavor  in  my  butter,  or  in 
my  oleomargarine,  either. 

Secretary  WILSON.  You  can  not  get  cows'  butter  without  it. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  may  be  true,  but  you  can  get  oleomargarine 
without  it. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Well,  you  have  a  perfect  right  to  buy  oleomar- 
garine, but  I  do  not  want  you  to  be  deceived  and  pay  10  cents  a  pound 
too  much.  The  poor  people  are  being  robbed  by  this  deception  to  the 
extent  of  10  cents  a  pound;  and  you  and  I,  who  have  to  take  butter 
from  second  or  third  hands  in  this  city,  are  deceived  regularly.  If  you 
will  send  ine  samples  of  the  butter  you  are  eating  between  now  and 
spring  I  will  tell  you  the  percentage  of  it  that  is  oleomargarine.  I  will 
have  it  analyzed.  In  fact,  we  have  been  analyzing  it  for  members  of 
Congress  who  have  sent  samples  to  us. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  will  send  you  some  over. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  sent  a  reply  yesterday  to  Congressman  Dahle, 
who  had  sent  us  a  sample. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  You  spoke  about  paying  10  cents  a  pound  too 
much.  What  price  ought  it  to  sell  at? 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  suppose  fats  vary  in  value  on  the  markets  the 
same  as  butter  does,  -but  you  will  always  find  that  the  fats  of  commerce 
are  cheaper  than  the  fats  of  the  cow. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  A  prospectus  of  the  great  butterine  corporation 
which  is  about  to  put  up  a  plant  here,  with  a  capital  of  a  million  dollars, 
as  an  inducement  to  an  investment,  states  that  the  aggregate  value  of 


422  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  materials  and  manufacture  of  a  pound  of  oleomargarine  is  a  frac- 
tion more  than  11  cents. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  It  sells  here  on  the  market  for  18  cents  per 
pound. 

Senator  MONEY.  We  have  here  an  advertisement  from  a  grocer  in 
Cincinnati,  I  believe,  who  advertises  three  grades  of  oleomargarine, 
and  my  recollection  is  that  the  prices  were  11J,  12J,  and  13  cents. 
Then  he  advertises  his  butter  at  about  25  cents.  He  may  be  an  excep- 
tional trader,  and  I  think  honest  traders  are  generally  exceptional. 

Secretary  WILSON.  A  gentleman  has  handed  me  a  table  of  prices 
here  showing  that  it  costs  five  and  a  fraction  cents  a  pound.  I  do  not 
know  how  that  is. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  in  regard  to  this  process  butter, 
would  not  the  self-interest  of  the  farmer  gradually  tend  to  cure  that 
evil — the  manufacture  of  poor  butter,  rancid  butter  I 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  education  at  agricultural  colleges  is  doing 
that.  Process  butter,  or  renovated  butter,  as  we  understand  it,  is  the 
butter  picked  up  through  the  grocery  stores  throughout  the  country 
where  they  have  no  creameries  and  shipped  to  central  points. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  they  have  no  proper  training  and  do  not  know 
how  to  make  good  butter? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Exactly.  It  is  shipped  by  these  people  to  the 
markets  and  sold  for  what  they  can  get;  and  generally  the  merchant 
handles  it  without  a  profit,  because  he  sells  goods  by  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  So  that  self-interest  would  tend  to 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes.  They  take  a  mass  of  this  stuff  with  as 
many  colors  as  Jacob's  coat  and  reduce  it  to  one  color,  and  they  use 
chemicals.  I  have  known  lime  to  be  used  for  that  purpose.  That  kind 
of  butter  gets  a  bacteria,  the  bacteria  of  decomposition,  and  they  have 
to  use  strong  chemicals  in  order  to  destroy  and  kill  that  bacteria.  Then 
they  put  the  thing  on  the  market,  and  if  we  happen  to  eat  it  we  have 
to  take  chances  on  those  chemicals. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  want  to  ask  one  more  question  in  that  connec- 
tion. On  account  of  self-interest — that  is  what  governs  the  human  race 
usually — would  not  the  tendency  be  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomarga- 
rine more  and  more  to  use  cheaper  and  improper  materials  as  compe- 
tition grew  greater? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Oh,  there  is  no  limit.  They  will  take  the  cheap- 
est materials,  no  matter  where  they  find  them.  Without  any  question 
self-interest  will  require  them  to  do  that. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  country  groceryman  all  over  the  United  States 
receives  butter  from  his  customers  in  exchange  for  goods'? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Very  much  of  which  is  not  salable  even  in  the  county 
where  it  is  manufactured? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.  It  is  put  into  barrels  and  kept  sometimes  for  weeks. 
Where  is  that  butter  shipped  ? 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  butter  is  shipped  to  centers,  where  it  is 
renovated. 

Senator  ALLEN.  And  that  goes  in  process  butter? 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  is  the  foundation  of  process  butter;  but  in 
our  country,  in  the  West,  where  the  creameries  are  extended,  it  is  not 
known  any  more.  There  are  whole  counties  in  your  State  and  mine 
where  no  such  butter  originates  at  all,  because  they  sell  the  milk  to  the 
creamery,  and  it  makes  fine  Elgin  butter. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  423 

Senator  ALLEN.  Almost  every  little  town  has  some  butter  dealer, 
and  lie  has  a  little  machine  by  which  he  takes  much  of  this  butter  and 
renovates  it,  as  he  calls  it.  This  is  true  in  little  towns  of  800  or  1,000 
people.  What  kind  of  butter  is  that,  and  where  does  it  go? 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  best  of  it—a  great  deal  of  it — is  good  but- 
ter. The  best  of  it  is  put  on  the  market  as  second  or  third  grade  butter. 
The  very  poorest  of  it,  that  is  beginning  to  become  rancid,  is  shipped 
to  centers  where  they  manufacture  the  process  article. 

Senator  ALLEN.  In  these  little  towns  and  the  country  surrounding 
them  there  is  about  one  good  butter  maker  out  of  a  dozen. 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  is  right. 

Senator  ALLEN.  That  good  butter  is  always  sold  at  home — sold  to 
private  families. 

Senator  MONEY.  At  a  big  price? 

Senator  ALLEN.  At  a  big  price.  For  instance,  in  my  State,  where 
butter  in  June  is  only  8  or  9  cents  a  pound,  I  pay  20  cents  a  pound  for 
it  the  year  round. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Well,  factories  are  established  in  your  State,  and 
they  make  a  tine  Elgin  brand,  using  that  name  as  representative,  and 
they  get  just  what  it  is  worth  in  Elgin,  minus  the  transportation. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  thing  I  wanted  to  call  your  attention  to  particu- 
larly was  this:  This  fine-grade  country  butter  made  by  the  farmer's 
wife  or  daughter  is  all  consumed  in  the  little  villages  where  it  is  made. 
The  great  bulk  of  butter  that  is  shipped  out  of  these  little  villages 
either  goes  through  a  process  of  renovation  at  home — I  have  seen  them 
work  it  myself;  small,  cheap  concerns — or  else  they  are  put  m  barrels 
and  shipped  somewhere  else. 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  I  want  to  know  is,  what  becomes  of  that 
butter? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Oh,  that  is  made  into  renovated  butter.  Con- 
gress, in  its  wisdom,  in  1862  provided  for  experimental  agricultural 
colleges,  and  in  1887  provided  for  experiment  stations.  There  is  an 
admirable  one  started  in  your  State,  and  there  is  one  in  my  State  which 
is  very  near  the  forefront  of  anything  of  its  kind  in  the  world.  There 
they  train  from  100  to  200  young  men  every  winter  to  make  first-rate 
butter,  so  that  the  training  of  people  is  overcoming  the  renovating 
feature. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  our  State  years  ago  the  country  merchants  took 
in  a  large  amount  of  butter,  more  than  his  village  trade  would  take. 
He  then  sent  the  best  of  it  to  commission  merchants  in  Boston  and 
New  York  to  be  sold.  The  cracker  manufacturers  and  others  would 
pick  up  the  cheapest  of  it  and  dump  it  into  a  barrel  and  treat  it  in  some 
way,  1  suppose. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  that  is  almost  a  thing  of  the  past.  There  is 
no  store  that  I  know  of  that  takes  in  butter  enough  for  its  own  cus- 
tomers. It  is  very  rare  that  they  take  any  of  a  farmer.  They  have  to 
buy  good  butter  of  a  creamery  or  of  first-class  dairies. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  change  has  taken  place.  Dairying  has  become 
profitable  there,  and  the  only  profit  is  in  making  a  nice  article. 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  education  of  the  people  along  these  lines  will 
do  away  very  soon  with  the  renovated  feature  of  butter.  The  great 
danger  does  not  come  from  that.  It  comes  from  the  imitation  of  the 
genuine  cows'  butter  by  coloring,  so  as  to  deceive  the  consumer. 


424  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Will  you  allow  me  to  ask  you  a  question,  Mr.  Secre- 
tary? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Surely. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  You  stated,  I  believe,  that  the  consumption  of  butter 
in  the  United  States  amounted  to  about  83  pounds  per  capita.  Was 
that  your  statement? 

Secretary  WILSON.    No ;  I  think  not. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  What  was  the  statement  you  made  ? 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  eighty-three  you  have  in  mind  was  83,000,000 
pounds  of  oleomargarine.  My  statement  was  18J  pounds  per  capita,  if 
I  remember  correctly. 

Senator  MONEY.  Yes;  18J  pounds  of  butter. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  How  many  pounds  of  butter  were  consumed  last  year 
in  the  United  States?  Was  that  stated  by  you  to-day? 

Secretary  WILSON.  No;  I  dealt  with  oleomargarine,  but  if  you  will 
multiply  18 J  by  76,000,000  you  will  get  it  very  closely. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  You  stated,  however,  that  the  consumption  of  oleo- 
margarine amounted  to  but  a  little  over  1  pound  per  capita. 

Secretary  WILSON.  A  little  over  1  pound  per  capita  in  the  United 
States;  yes. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Then  you  did  state  what  the  consumption  of  butter 
was,  and  it  seemed  to  me  it  was  80  pounds  per  capita. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Eighteen  and  a  half  pounds. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  If  the  consumption  of  oleomargarine  is  only  4  per 
cent  of  the  consumption  of  butter,  do  you  think  that  the  competition 
up  to  this  time  has  been  such  as  to  enter  into  all  of  these  hotels  and 
that  we  are  all  eating  more  oleomargarine  than  butter. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Without  any  question,  all  over  this  District  oi 
Columbia.  I  have  looked  into  it  with  the  utmost  care.  I  have  had 
my  experts  go  and  inquire,  and  there  is  not  the  least  doubt,  Judge,  bat 
that  you  and  I  are  eating  it  right  along  all  the  time  when  we  buy  here. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  What  has  become  of  the  butter  that  is  made,  then? 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  is  used  also. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Is  not  one  reason  we  are  consuming  so  much 
oleomargarine  in  this  country  because  we  get  such  a  poor  lot  of  butter 
here  ?  I  have  been  here  four  years,  and  I  have  not  yet  been  successful 
in  finding  a  dealer  who  keeps  good  butter  all  the  time. 

Secretary  WILSON.  No,  Senator;  that  is  not  the  reason.  The  reason 
is  there  is  such  a  great  profit  in  oleomargarine. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  A  Senator  told  me  the  other  day  that  his  wife 
went  to  the,  market  and  deceived  him  with  oleomargarine.  He  said  it 
was  the  best  butter  that  has  been  on  his  table.  He  had  tried  for  three 
years  to  get  the  best  butter,  and  he  said  now  he  was  against  oleomar- 
garine because  he  did  not  want  to  get  deceived  any  longer. 

Secretary  WILSON.  This  was  a  bad  place  to  try  that  experiment.  I 
get  my  butter  direct  from  the  creamery,  and  I  will  furnish  you  a  sam- 
ple, at  any  time,  of  genuine  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  say  the  best  butter  has  a  generic  name — Elgin 
butter? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes,  sir;  we  call  fine  creamery  butter  Elgin 
butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  Is  it  true  or  not — because  it  has  been  stated  to  me 
that  it  was  true — that  these  fine  Elgin  creameries  that  make  fine  butter 
are  very  great  consumers  of  oleomargarine? 

Secretary  WILSON.  No;  I  think  not. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  have  been  told  so  by  a  gentleman  here  who  said 


OLEOMARGARINE.  425 

he  was  agent  for  Armour  &  Co.,  and  that  his  largest  customer  was  one 
of  the  most  celebrated  creameries  at  Elgin,  111. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Elgin  butter  is  made  all  over  the  country.  There 
may  be  one  scoundrel  living  at  Elgin. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  suppose  there  might  be. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  desire  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  if  I  may,  if 
there  is  not  quite  a  large  amount  of  the  best  creamery  butter  that  does 
tin  ally  become  rancid  and  poor? 

Secretary  WILSON.  If  you  do  not  take  care  of  butter  it  will  become 
rancid. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  am  asking  you  if  it  is  not  a  fact  that  a  large 
part  of  it  does  become  in  that  condition? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  So  that  there  will  always  be  quite  a  quantity  of 
butter  to  be  renovated  ? 

Secretary  WILSON.  No,  sir.  Fine  butters  are  handled  so  as  to  be 
kept  in  cold  condition  to  prevent  the  development  of  bacteria  until  they 
are  sold.  Now,  let  me  illustrate  that  point.  If  you  make  butter  this 
morning  and  want  it  consumed  this  evening,  you  press  a  very  little 
buttermilk  out,  so  as  to  leave  the  casein  there  in  order  to  develop  bac- 
teria rapidly  and  bring  up  your  flavor  at  once.  If  you  are  going  to  ship 
it,  so  that  it  will  not  be  consumed  for  a  week,  you  must  work  it  over 
and  get  nearly  all  the  buttermilk  and  casein  out,  because  the  casein  is 
the  element  in  which  the  bacteria  multiplies.  If  you  send  it  from  here 
to  Great  Britain,  you  must  work  it  twice  over;  and  the  habit  in  old 
times  with  the  Dutch  women  when  they  wanted  to  furnish  butter  for 
the  Dutch  navy  was  to  work  it  twelve  times.  They  worked  in  those 
days  with  their  hands,  and  when  they  had  worked  it  twelve  times  they 
had  all  the  casein  washed  out.  Then  they  put  it  into  a  keg,  put  it  in 
the  hold  of  a  Dutch  man-of-war,  and  it  crossed  the  Tropics  twice  and 
came  back  sweet,  because  all  the  opportunity  for  multiplying  bacteria 
had  been  taken  out  of  that  butter.  That  was  the  old  way,  and  butter 
is  worked  now  so  as  to  suit  the  times  intervening  when  it  will  be 
consumed. 

Mr.  TiLLiNGrHAST.  Then,  you  say  by  the  improved  methods  of 
handling  butter  in  time  the  renovated  butter  will  go  out  of  existence? 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  think  so.  We  had  a  letter  yesterday  from  the 
Iowa  Agricultural  College  in  which  they  told  me  they  had  four  stu- 
dents there  in  the  short  course.  Every  year  they  turn  out  hundreds  of 
educated  dairymen.  Out  in  Nebraska  there  is  a  fine  school  doing  that 
very  work ;  and  the  time  will  come  when  you  will  not  find  a  bit  of 
renovated  butter  in  Iowa  or  Nebraska;  and  in  Vermont  and  many  other 
dairy  States  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  now. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  see  that  in  your  statement,  Mr.  Secretary,  you  say 
the  domestic  consumption  of  oleomargarine  is  in  excess  of  1  pound  per 
capita  as  against  the  estimated  consumption  of  18  J  pounds  of  butter. 
1  was  mistaken  about  the  amount.  It  is  18£  pounds.  Is  1  pound  in 
18  a  serious  competition? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Very  serious. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  received  a  telegram  from  a  cattle  dealer  in 
Iowa  stating  that  this  bill  was  likely  to  very  greatly  damage  the  value 
of  beef  cattle. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes  j  he  does  not  know  what  he  is  talking  about, 
that  same  cattle  dealer. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  would  like  a  little  fuller  statement  from  you  as 
to  the  relation  of  the  cattle  industry  and  the  dairy  farm. 


426  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Well,  take  Iowa,  where  I  am  personally 
acquainted.  We  have  been  getting  our  feeders  from  beyond  the  Mis- 
souri and  they  are  getting  scarcer  and  scarcer,  and  it  is  becoming  evi- 
dent that  we  must  produce  the  feeders  on  our  own  grounds.  We  can 
not  keep  a  cow  to  raise  a  calf  only  in  the  Mississippi  Valley.  We  must 
milk  our  cow  to  make  a  profit.  The  great  feeder  in  Iowa  will  become 
a  thing  of  the  past.  It  has  not  existed  for  centuries  in  European 
countries.  The  feeding  steer  in  European  countries  is  raised  on  the 
farm  and  finished  on  the  farm,  and  that  will  be  the^case  in  Iowa.  We 
Western  farmers  like  to  farm  on  horseback,  and  the  man  who  feeds 
steers  likes  to  buy  them  and  buy  corn  to  feed  them,  or  feed  them  his 
own  corn;  but  the  day  is  coming  when  he  can  not  buy  them,  because 
the  dairy  farmer  will  find  it  profitable  to  raise  his  own  calves  and  finish 
his  own  calves  on  his  own  farm  with  his  own  products. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Then,  you  hold  that  the  destruction  or  fatal 
injury  of  the  dairy  farm  would  destroy  the  whole  cattle  business? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes ;  for  this  reason.  I  have  discussed  the  South- 
ern question  here.  I  am  very  much  interested  in  those  people.  I  go 
down  there  often,  and  find  them  a  lovable  people;  but  I  find  they 
have  grown  crops  and  oxidized  the  humus  out  of  their  soil  until  in 
many  cases  they  do  not  get  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  bale  of  cotton  to 
the  acre.  If  it  had  not  been  for  the  cotton  crop  of  the  great  State  of 
Texas,  the  world  would  have  been  suffering  for  cotton  now.  There  is  no 
way  by  which  they  can  ever  bring  the  soil  back  to  full  fertility  except  by 
putting  the  humus  back,  and  that  will  be  done  by  letting  the  cow  and 
her  calf  graze.  What  little  interest  they  have  now  in  selling  a  little 
bit  of  cotton-seed  oil  is  infinitesimal  compared  with  the  great  benefit 
that  will  come  to  them  from  correct  farming,  and  a  well-organized  farm 
means  the  dairy  cow  present  every  time. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  are  not  going  to  have  it  with  the  increase  in 
population. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Let  me  tell  you  something  on  that  point.  There 
is  a  man  who  lives  out  here  about  25  miles  in  Maryland,  named  Boyd. 
He  keeps  200  or  300  cows,  if  I  remember  correctly,  and  he  sends  in 
excellent  milk  into  this  city.  He  has  colored  people  to  milk  them.  I 
do  not  say  that  every  colored  man  or  colored  woman  is  fit  to  milk  a 
cow.  The  dairy  cow  should  be  treated  as  delicately  as  you  would  treat 
a  fine  lady  when  you  take  her  out  to  dinner.  The  negroes  will  not  all 
do  that,  but  some  of  them  will,  and  you  can  make  a  success  in  the 
South  of  the  dairy  with  colored  people  for  milkers. 

Mr.  WADS  WORTH.  They  have  never  been  made  a  success,  have  they, 
Mr.  Secretary? 

Secretary  WILSON.  It  has.  I  have  given  you  one  case  where  a  man 
has  200  o/300  cows  and  milks  them  with  colored  people.  He  sends 
the  milk  into  this  city. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  beef  qattle  of  the  West  do  not 
go  in  the  dairy  herds,  and  is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  large  herds  of  the 
West  are  inbred  Herefords,  which  are  not  dairy  cows  ? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Oh,  bless  your  soul,  no. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  all  Western  herds  are  headed  by 
Hereford  bulls? 

Secretary  WILSON.  No;  not  exclusively.  You  ask  Senator  Harris, 
who  is  a  Kansas  stockman,  and  he  will  tell  you  that  men  who  have 
been  using  the  Hereford  blood  find  that  they  have  gotten  them  too 
small. 

Mr.  MILLER.  My  dear  sir,  the  Hereford  are  large  cattle ;  that  is  why 


OLEOMARGARINE.  427 

they  have  them.  Mr.  Armour,  of  Kansas  City,  owns  the  largest  Here- 
fore  herd  in  the  world,  and  he  sells  them  on  the  Western  ranges. 

Secretary  WILSON.  How  many  does  he  sell? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Generally  from  40,000  to  50,000  four  times  a  year. 

Secretary  WILSON.  How  many  head  does  he  own! 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  don't  know. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  guess  you  will  find  that  others  own  as  large 
herds. 

Mr.  MILLER.  He  has  the  reputation  of  owning  the  largest  herd  in 
the  West.  He  holds  a  sale  three  or  four  times  a  year  at  Kansas  City, 
and  all  these  bulls  go  to  the  Western  herds. 

Secretary  WILSON.  If  you  will  examine  the  reports  of  the  experi- 
ment station,  you  will  find  my  report  on  that  subject.  They  make  excel- 
lent feeders,  but  the  difficulty  with  them  is  they  are  not  good  milkers. 
They  can  not  be  used  in  the  dairy.  The  man  who  originated  them  is 
on  record  as  saying  that  he  could  have  made  good  dairy  cattle  of  them 
if  he  had  turned  his  attention  that  way,  but  he  did  not.  He  turned 
his  attention  to  beef  making,  and  he  repressed  the  tendency  to  give 
milk.  The  result  is  that  they  can  be  used  for  beef  cattle,  but  the 
demand  to-day  is  for  cattle  that  will  give  milk  as  well  as  raise  calves, 
and  the  people  in  the  West  who  are  grazing  on  the  free  commons  could 
not  afford  to  keep  a  cow  for  the  calf  if  they  had  to  pay  rent  for  those 
lands. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  think  this  gentleman  is  mistaken,  Secretary.  The 
four  beef  producing  herds  are  the  Shorthorn,  Hereford,  the  Angus 
Borden,  and  the  Galloway. 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  is  right. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  can  not  sell  anything  else  for  beef  producing. 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  is  right;  but  you  can  develop  milk  giving 
in  any  of  those  breeds  if  you  feed  for  milk.  The  Shorthorn  is  a  famous 
milker.  You  can  make  the  Angus  or  the  Galway  or  the  Hereford  milch 
cattle  if  you  will  feed  for  milk  and  milk  them.  The  difficulty  has  been 
with  the  Herefords  that  they  have  been  bred  away  from  milk.  That  is 
where  the  trouble  is.  Are  there  any  other  questions,  gentlemen? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  One  more  question,  Mr.  Secretary.  Is  it  possible 
to  produce  this-oleomargarine,  according  to  your  scientific  report,  of  the 
butter  color,  without  coloring  it  artificially  f 

Secretary  WILSON.  Oh,  no.  You  can  get  the  dairy  cow's  butter  yel- 
low, if  you  feed  right;  but  the  chemist  can  not  put  in  any  other  color 
without  using  the  coal-tar  dyes. 

Senator  MONEY.  If  you  put  in  enough  cotton-seed  oil,  you  can  give 
it  a  good  color,  and  that  is  the  best  thing  that  goes  into  it,  anyway. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  think  there  is  only  a  very  light  shade  of  yellow 
in  the  fine  cotton -seed  oil. 

Senator  MONEY.  They  do  refine  it,  and  we  eat  it  on  our  table  every 
day. 

Secretary  WILSON.  There  is  no  possible  direction  in  which  the  South 
can  renovate  its  worn-out  lauds  so  fast  as  to  feed  that  cotton  seed  to 
stock.  It  is  the  finest  feed  on  earth. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  know  that.    I  am  a  farmer.    I  raise  cotton. 

Secretary  WILSON.  And  you  can  not  do  it  without  the  dairy  cow. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  raise  cows,  too. 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  dairy  cow  is  the  only  instrumentality.  You 
can  not  do  it  by  commercial  fertilizers,  because  it  will  not  put  the  humus 
in  the  soil. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  are  right  about  that. 


428  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  DOLLIVBR.  We  had  a  merchant  here  from  New  Jersey,  where 
the  law  forbids  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine,  who  stated  that  he 
obtained  his  oleomargarine  under  special  order  from  the  manufacturer 
with  the  butter  color— the  yellow  color— produced,  not  by  artificial 
coloring,  but  by  a  careful  and  judicious  collection  of  the  ingredients 
entering  into  the  manufacture  of  the  article. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  am  not  familiar  with  any  process  of  that  kind. 
That  may  be.  We  can  not  limit  the  capacity  of  a  chemist,  but  I  do  not 
want  the  chemist  to  produce  an  article  that  will  cost  me  10  cents  more  a 
pound  than  it  is  worth,  without  coloring  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  oleomargarine  is  manufactured  and 
sold  abroad,  is  it  not? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Oh,  yes;  my  paper  shows  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  I  noticed  it.    Is  it  colored  there? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Oh,  no ;  we  are  the  only  people  on  earth  who  do 
not  take  care  of  what  our  people  consume  and  what  they  eat,  and  the 
purity  of  our  food. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  a  sale  there  for  what  it  is? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes;  it  is  a  legitimate  business,  if  they  do  not 
deceive  somebody — entirely  so. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  exporters  of  butterine  and  we 
color  every  pound  we  send  out.  In  some  of  the  West  Indies  we  color 
it  red. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Have  they  laws  down  in  the  West  Indies  on 
that  subject? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Some  of  the  countries  have  laws,  yes,  sir. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  presume  you  do  not  sell  oleomargarine  to  Great 
Britain  and  color  it,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  have  no  export  trade  to  Great  Britain,  but  that  is 
because  they  manufacture  their  own  product. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Do  you  ship  oleomargarine  to  foreign  countries? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Where  do  you  send  it? 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  send  it  to  a  number  of  countries.  We  do  not  send 
it  to  Great  Britain  and  some  other  countries.  The  little  country  of 
Holland  has  19  factories  as  against  27  in  the  United  States,  and  it  is 
not  bigger  than  the  State  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN.  And  yet  they  sell  it  as  white,  do  they? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir ;  they  sell  it  colored. 

Secretary  WILSON.  You  are  only  telling  what  Armour  &  Co.  do;  but 
the  United  States  does  ship  butter  to  foreign  countries. 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  ship  oleomargarine;  we  do  not  ship  butter. 

Secretary  WILSON.  You  do  not  ship  it  to  any  foreign  country  where 
they  have  got  laws  and  sell  it  for  butter. 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  do  not  sell  it  for  butter  at  all.  We  sell  it  for  oleo- 
margarine in  this  country  and  in  other  countries. 

Secretary  WILSON.  But  the  people  down  in  these  countries  where 
you  send  it  do  not  happen  to  have  any  laws,  and  if  they  did  have  laws 
we  know  the  character  of  people  they  are  down  there. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  I  understand  the  Secretary  to  say  that  in  Hol- 
land they  do  not  color  the  oleomargarine? 

Secretary  WILSON.  You  understood  him  to  say  that. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  ask  if  the  Secretary  says  that. 

Secretary  WILSON.  No;  you  did  not  understand  me  to  say  that. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  How  did  I  understand  you? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  429 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  is  a  fact  1  am  not  possessed  of.  The  gentle- 
man representing  Armour  &  Co.  made  a  remark  along  that  line. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  But  the  Secretary  did  assert  that  no  oleomarga- 
rine abroad  was  colored.  He  did  not  touch  Holland  or  any  one  coun- 
try, but  he  said  that,  and  I  thought  it  was  a  mistake  when  he  uttered  it. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  may  have  made  that  too  broad,  but  I  mean  the 
European  countries.  I  will  modify  that  statement.  They  may  send  it 
to  the  West  Indies,  down  among  those  colored  people. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  meant  Europe.  I  did  not  say  so,  but  I  meant 
Europe. 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  is  what  I  meant.  Oh,  no,  you  can  not  sell 
coloied  oleomargarine  there  and  sell  it  for  butter. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  No,  but  you  can  sell  it  for  what  it  is. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes,  you  can  sell  it  for  what  it  is. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  The  point  is  whether  it  was  colored  abroad,  if  I 
may  be  allowed  to  interrupt. 

Secretary  WILSON.  With  that  I  am  not  familiar. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  You  said  it  was  not,  and  I  felt  confident  that  it 
was.  That  is  why  I  called  your  attention  to  it. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  think  the  majority  of  the  stuff  of  that  kind  that 
is  sent  abroad  goes  as  oleo  oil. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  I  am  not  speaking  of  what  is  sent  abroad,  but 
what  is  manufactured  over  there. 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  manufacture  over  there  for  sale  to  the  people 
is  not  the  same  as  it  is  over  here.  Those  people  enforce  the  laws  over 
there.  They  will  not  permit  any  deception  along  those  lines. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  That  is  not  the  question.  Mr.  Chairman,  you 
asked  the  question  whether  oleomargarine  is  manufactured  in  foreign 
countries  and  whether  it  is  colored.  The  answer  of  the  Secretary  was 
that  it  was  not  colored.  I  thought  at  the  time  that  was  a  mistake  or  an 
oversight — not  our  oleomargarine,  but  the  oleomargarine  that  is  manu- 
factured abroad  by  Europeans. 

Mr.  JELKE.  May  I  ask  one  question? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Are  there  any  countries  in  Europe  in  which  there  is  a 
tax  imposed  on  the  sale  of  oleomargarine,  either  colored  or  uncolored? 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  I  do  not  know.    Probably  you  know. 

Mr.  JELKE.  There  is  none. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Very  good.    Now,  you  have  given  us  a  fact. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Mr.  Secretary,  may  I  ask  you  a  question? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Surely. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  f  ou  speak  of  the  infinitesimal  quantity  of  cotton 
oil  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  this  country. 

Secretary  WILSON.  As  compared  with  the  benefits  of  the  dairy. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Are  you  aware  of  the  quantity  consumed  for  that 
purpose!  Are  you  aware  of  the  quantity  that  is  exported  for  the  same 
purpose? 

Secretary  WILSON.  We  can  find  those  things  very  readily.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  can  tell  about  it. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  I  want  to  say  as  a  manufacturer  and  as  a  live-stock 
owner  that  the  quantity  that  is  used  in  this  country  and  that  is  exported 
for  the  same  purpose  abroad  is  equal  to  nearly  25  per  cent  of  the  whole 
quantity  of  oil  produced  in  the  South. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Do  you  know  how  much  oil  is  produced  iu  the 
South  I  Give  us  that  as  you  go  along. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  About  a  million  and  a  half  barrels. 


430  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Can  you  let  us  have  it  in  pounds  ?  Then  we  will 
understand  it. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  If  you  multiply  that  by  fifty  and  by  seven  and  a 
half  you  will  get  it.  A  million  and  a  half  times  fifty  will  give  you  the 
gallons,  and  multiply  that  by  seven  and  a  half  and  it  will  give  you  the 
pounds. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  am  speaking  of  what  is  in  the  cotton  seed. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  You  spoke  of  the  fact  that  oleomargarine  abroad 
was  not  colored,  did  you  not? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Oleomargarine  sent  from  here  to  Europe? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  No;  manufactured  abroad.  Is  it  colored  or  un- 
colored  ? 

Secretary  WILSON.  That  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  I  will  say  that  I  know  of  my  own  personal  knowl- 
edge that  it  is  colored. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Very  good. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  And  is  almost  identical  in  appearance  with  that 
sold  here  as  oleomargarine. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Is  that  shipped  from  this  country  abroad  ? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  No,  sir;  it  is  made  in  Rotterdam,  in  Holland,  and 
is  made  in  Germany. 

Senator  ALLEN.  That  is  not  the  question.  Is  the  oleomargarine  you 
export  colored  before  it  leaves  this  country? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir;  every  pound  of  it. 

Mr.  MILLER.  All  the  butterine  we  export  is  colored.  We  do  not  sell 
any  in  Europe  or  in  England,  because  there  are  large  manufacturers  over 
there.  There  is  one  factory  in  London  that  makes  more  butterine  in 
one  year  than  all  the  factories  in  the  United  States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Those  are  statements  you  can  make.  I  hardly  think 
it  is  necessary  to  detain  the  Secretary  in  this  general  discussion.  We 
are  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  and  we  shall  be  very  glad 
to  hear  anything  further  from  you  that  you  wish  to  say. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  have  nothing  further  to  say,  and  I  am  very  much 
obliged  to  the  committee  for  their  attention. 

Senator  ALLEN.  If  the  Secretary  has  any  further  information  that  he 
would  like  to  submit  to  us  before  we  make  our  report,  I  think  we  should 
be  glad  to  have  it. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  shall  be  glad  to  do  so,  and  I  shall  see  to  it  that 
you  get  some  genuine  butter  in  your  family  before  the  winter  is  over. 

(At  this  point  Senator  Proctor  left  the  room  and  Senator  Hansbrough 
took  the  chair.) 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Adams,  are  you  ready  to  proceed? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

STATEMENT  OF  H.  G.  ADAMS. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  will  take  up  this  subject 
at  a  point  where  it  was  dropped  by  Secretary  Wilson. 

The  statement  has  been  repeatedly  made  that  the  friends  of  the  Grout 
Bill  are  endeavoring  to  destroy  the  oleomargarine  industry,  and  they 
base  their  argument  upon  the  statement  of  our  position.  They  have 
proceeded  to  attack  us  as  being  men  who  are  striving  to  fight  down  one 
legitimate  industry  in  the  interest  of  another.  These  gentlemen  can 
not  be  permitted  to  state  our  position  for  us.  We  appear  here  for  our- 
selves, and  I  desire  to  say  to  this  committee  on  my  own  behalf  and  OD 


OLEOMARGARINE.  431 

behalf  of  the  people  whom  I  represent,  and  of  the  sentiment  of  the 
State  which  I  represent,  that  we  are  not  here  to  make  any  fight  on  oleo- 
margarine as  oleomargarine  under  its  own  form  and  under  its  own  color. 
We  are  here,  as  Mr.  Flanders  said,  to,  if  possible,  legislate  the  fraud 
out  of  oleomargarine. 

The  central  argument  which  our  friends  on  the  other  side  have  made 
here  is  that  if  you  take  the  color  out  of  oleomargarine  you  can  not  sell 
it;  that  you  are  going  to  absolutely  destroy  that  industry.  I  deny  the 
proposition,  and  I  can  prove  that  that  denial  is  made  in  good  faith  and 
warranted  by  the  facts  of  the  oleomargarine  business,  not  only  in  this 
country  but  abroad. 

Some  figures  were  given  here  this  morning  by  Mr.  Wilson  with  refer- 
ence to  the  oleomargarine  traffic  and  the  consumption  in  this  country 
and  abroad,  and  I  want  to  say  to  you  that  in  Denmark,  which  is  a  dairy 
country,  where  the  Government  has  used  its  power  to  educate  its  people 
and  instruct  them  in  the  business  of  making  good  butter,  where  it  is 
under  careful  governmental  supervision— a  little  country,  less  than  one- 
half  the  size  of  the  State  which  I  represent  (Wisconsin),  with  50,000 
square  miles  of  territory— they  export  every  year  into  the  European 
markets  130,000,000  pounds  of  the  best  butter  which  goes  into  the  mar- 
kets of  the  world,  and  in  that  country  the  farmers  buy  oleomargarine. 
I  admit  it.  They  buy  it.  How?  They  buy  it  white,  the  color  which 
nature  gives  it.  Mr.  Wilson  says  they  consume  3J  pounds  per  capita 
over  in  Denmark,  and  that  we  consume  1  pound  over  here  in  the  United 
States.  Yet  Prof.  W.  A.  Henry,  of  the  experiment  station  of  Wiscon- 
sin, one  of  the  men  who  has  done  more  to  educate  the  farm  sentiment 
and  the  farm  judgment  of  this  country,  perhaps,  than  any  man  in  it, 
returned  from  Europe  only  a  few  weeks  ago,  and  told  me  that  he  had 
traveled  in  Denmark  and  gone  into  the  stores  of  that  country  and 
studied  the  laws  of  Denmark  with  reference  to  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  dairy  products  and  dairy  imitations,  and  he  found  that  in  the 
stores  of  Denmark,  where  they  sell  oleomargarine,  they  are  compelled 
to  sell  it  on  one  side  of  the  store  and  butter  on  the  other  side  of  the 
store,  and  that  they  are  compelled  to  sell  that  product  in  the  color  which 
nature  gives  it,  which  is  substantially  white.  And  there  in  Denmark, 
where  they  are  compelled  to  do  what  the  producers  of  honest  butter 
want  the  manufacturers  of  this  substitute  to  do  in  this  .country,  they 
are  selling  three  and  one-half  times  as  much  to  the  inhabitants  as  they 
are  selling  here  in  the  United  States,  manufacturing  and  selling  that 
product  in  numerous  States  in  violation  of  the  law,  simply  because  it 
is  in  imitation  of  a  more  costly  and  more  valuable  product. 

I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  and  I  say  it  in  all  sincerity,  that  if  I  were  an 
oleomargarine  manufacturer,  conscious  of  the  value  which  my  substi- 
tute had  in  the  markets  of  this  country,  instead  of  coming  to  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  and  demanding  as  a  right  that  I  should 
have  the  privilege  of  coloring  my  product  in  imitation  of  the  natural 
substance  of  which  it  is  a  counterfeit,  I  would  come  here  and  say: 
''Gentlemen,  regulate  the  color  of  my  product  by  national  legislation 
if  you  will.  It  is  wholesome.  The  poor  people  in  this  country  want  it. 
It  has  its  merits.  There  is  a  place  for  it  in  the  markets.  We  can  sell 
it.  We  are  now  under  the  ban  of  law  in  32  States.  We  are  constantly 
hampered  by  prosecutions  on  the  part  of  State  authorities.  We  are 
constantly  stung  by  the  criticism  of  honest  men  upon  the  character  of 
our  business,  and  we  are  willing  to  have  the  color  knocked  out  of  oleo- 
margarine and  put  it  on  the  markets  of  the  country  and  sell  it  under 
its  own  color,  and  for  precisely  what  it  is." 


432  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we  have  not  come  here  to  Congress 
asking  for  anything  tbat  is  wrong  in  any  way,  shape,  or  manner.  We 
are  not  here  representing  an  interest  which  is  to  crush  down  any  other 
legitimate  industry  in  the  United  States.  We  have  been  charged  with 
coming  here  as  manufacturers  of  an  inferior  product,  butter,  some  of 
which  is  manufactured  as  it  should  not  be,  and  asking  legislation  which 
is  dishonest;  and  these  gentlemen  have  stood  up  here  day  after  day, 
and  I  have  quietly  and  patiently  and  calmly  listened  to  their  indict- 
ment not  only  of  the  dairy  judgment  of  this  nation,  but  of  the  people 
of  32  States,  of  the  legislatures  of  32  States,  of  the  courts  of  32  States, 
and  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  which  has  declared 
that  a  State  prohibiting  the  manufacture  of  butterine  colored  in  imita- 
tion of  butter  is  exercising  a  legitimate  police  power — for  what?  To 
protect  the  public  health?  No,  sir;  to  protect  and  compel  honesty  in 
trade.  That  is  the  basis  of  this  legislation,  as  stated  in  the  judgment 
of  the  courts.  Why,  our  friends  come  up  here  and  say  that  these  laws 
are  passed  by  chicanery;  that  they  are  passed  because  dairymen's  asso- 
ciations have  political  influence.  Do  these  gentlemen  pretend  to  say 
that  the  32  great  States  in  this  Union  which  have  passed  these  laws 
have  passed  them  in  obedience  to  a  cheap  and  dishonest  and  class 
sentiment  ? 

I  have  here  a  map  of  the  United  States  showing  the  States  which 
have  passed  anticolor  laws.  You  find  there  a  good  portion  of  the 
Southern  States.  You  find  all  of  New  England  except  Ehode  Island. 
You  find  the  great  States  of  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio, 
and  Michigan,  and  Illinois,  and  Minnesota,  and  North  and  South 
Dakota,  and  Nebraska,  and  Iowa,  and  the  great  State  of  Missouri.  In 
1886  pur  friends,  the  Democrats,  endeavored  to  make  that  a  party 
question.  It  is  not  a  party  question.  We  went  before  the  members  of 
the  other  House  upon  this  question,  claiming  there,  as  we  claim  here, 
that  we  are  not  endeavoring  to  interfere  with  the  rights  which  belong  to 
any  man  or  any  class  of  men,  and  out  of  the  Southern  States  we  got 
20  votes ;  out  of  the  Democratic  vote  in  the  lower  House  we  got  49 
votes,  and  leaders  of  the  Kepublican  party  and  leaders  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party  on  both  sides  of  that  question  stood  together. 

Senator  ALLEN.  How  were  the  Populists? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  think  they  stood  by  us,  because  the  Populists  as  a 
rule  have  some  appreciation  and  knowledge  of  the  work  which  a  man 
does  who  tills  the  soil  and  works  upon  the  farm  for  his  daily  bread.  I 
want  to  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  we  are  not  here  to  do  injustice  to 
the  cotton-seed  oil  man.  We  are  not  here  to  do  injustice  to  the  men 
who  raise  steers.  We  are  not  here  to  do  injustice  to  any  interest;  but 
I  want  to  say  to  the  men  who  represent  the  cotton  seed  oil  interests 
and  the  men  who  represent  the  beef  interests  and  the  hog  interests 
of  this  country  that  if  we  can  prove  to  them  that  this  bill  is  right,  that 
it  is  designed  to  stop  a  fraud,  and  that  it  probably  will  stop  a  fraud,  it 
is  their  business  as  honest  men  and  as  good  citizens  of  this  Kepublic 
to  line  up  with  us,  no  matter  whether  it  hurts  their  business  or  not. 

This  is  not  simply  a  question  of  class  interest.  It  is  a  question  of 
public  policy;  and  I  want  to  say  to  this  committee  that  you  can  strike 
all  the  color  out  of  oleomargarine  and  have  it  sold  in  the  markets  of 
this  country  and  have  good  demand  for  it.  In  proof  of  that  I  want 
to  show  you  what  we  have  up  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

I  have  here  samples  of  butterine  which  may  interest  this  committee, 
and  the  gentlemen  upon  the  other  side  of  the  question  are  invited  to 
inspect  them.  These  samples  were  obtained  in  obedience  to  my  orders 


OLEOMARGARINE.  433 

by  N".  J.  Field,  of  Milwaukee.  He  was  instructed  by  me  a  week  ago 
last  Thursday  to  go  to  the  stores  of  Oshkosh,  Milwaukee,  and  Racine, 
in  our  State,  and  purchase  samples  of  uncolored  butterine,  and  to 
write  upon  those  samples  the  date  of  purchase,  the  name  of  the  firm 
from  whom  they  were  purchased,  and  the  cost.  I  now  have  the  pleasure 
of  submitting  these  samples  to  this  committee  for  their  inspection. 

Senator  H ANSBROUGH.  You  say  he  was  instructed  to  procure  samples 
of  uncolored  butterine? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir  5  of  oleomargarine.  I  would  like  to  say  that 
one  or  two  of  these  samples,  possibly  more,  are  slightly  colored,  but 
they  were  purchased  for  uncolored  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  the  chairman  will  permit  me,  I  would  like  to  make  a 
suggestion  that  these  samples  be  submitted  to  the  Government  chemist 
to  find  out  whether  or  not  they  contain  artificial  coloring,  and  also  to 
report  on  whether  they  contain  any  unwholesome  ingredient.  I  do  not 
know  where  they  come  from,  or  anything  about  it. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  think  that  ought  to  be  done. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  shall  direct  the  clerk  of  the  committee  to 
t  ak  care  of  these  samples  after  they  have  been  exhibited,  and  send 
them  to  the  chemist  at  the  Agricultural  Department  for  examination. 

Mr.  JELKE.  May  I  suggest  that  the  analysis  be  made  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  the  percentage  of  butter  fats  in  each  one,  as  well  as  the 
color  and  what  kind  of  color. 

Senator  HANSBROUGKH.  Yes;  he  will  be  directed  to  make  a  thorough 
analysis. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  wish  to  say,  gentlemen,  that  all  these  samples,  with 
the  possible  exception  of  this  one,  were  sold  by  the  dealer  in  response 
to  a  call  for  uncolored  butterine,  they  claiming  that  they  had  received  it 
from  the  manufacturers  as  uncolored  butterine. 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  test  will  show  that. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  now  wish  to  present  to  the  committee  and  have  incor- 
porated in  the  testimony  the  bill  for  this.  It  is  as  follows : 

WILLIAM  L.  MOXLEY, 
MANUFACTURER  OP  FINE  BUTTERINE,  66  AND  67  W.  MONROE  STREET, 

C  hicago,  January  25, 1900. 
W.  R.  WRIGHT  &  Co., 

4845  N.  Clark  street,  Rogers  Park,  III. 
Uncolored  oleomargarine:  2/56  D.  2  pts.  112  13,  $14.56. 

Senator  HANSBROUGKH.  Did  all  this  come  under  an  order  for  uncol- 
ored goods  ? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  These  all  came  under  an  order  from  my  inspector,  Mr. 
N.  J.  Field,  to  Jensen  &  Beck,  Kacine;  Hanley  "Brothers,  Kacine;  D.  C. 
Adams,  Milwaukee;  J.Linehan,  Milwaukee,  and  Hoenig  &  Co.,  Oshkosh. 
He  purchased  samples  of  uncolored  butterine  for  the  purpose  of 
demonstrating  the  fact  that  some  of  the  grocers  of  our  State  think  they 
are  endeavoring  to  comply  with  the  law,  and  some  of  them  are  endeav- 
oring to  comply  with  the  law,  and  some  of  them  sell  oleomargerine 
uncolored. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  are  using  the  word  "  oleomargarine"  and  the 
word  "butterine"  as  the  same  thing?" 

Mr.  ADAMS.  They  are  substantially  the  same  thing.  The  term  used 
in  the  internal-revenue  law  is  "  oleomargarine,"  and  it  covers  butterine. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  you  answer  a  question? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Would  you  think  it  fair  for  the  dealers  in  uncol- 
orea  oleomargarine  who  are  honestly  attempting  to  sell  it  as  uncolored 
oleomargarine  to  pay  a  tax  of  $48  a  year? 

S.  Rep.  2043 28 


434  OLEOMARGAKINE. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  As  far  as  my  individual  judgment  is  concerned  1  wish  to 
say  with  perfect  frankness  to  this  committee  what  I  have  said  all  the 
time — that  I  do  not  care  about  any  governmental  tax  upon  oleomar- 
garine under  its  own  form  and  color.  The  principle  I  am  contending 
for  here  in  this  bill,  not  simply  in  the  interest  of  the  competing  class 
except  as  they  have  a  right  to  be  considered  in  making  an  honest  profit, 
is  that  the  color  shall  betaken  out  of  oleomargarine  whereby  it  becomes 
a  counterfeit  of  an  honest  and  more  costly  product. 

The  figures  given  to  me  or  to  my  assistant  by  gentlemen  connected 
with  the  firms  which  have  been  cited  here  as  to  their  sales  of  what  they 
call  uncolored  butterine,  a  portion  of  which  is  evidently  un colored  but- 
teriue,  and  a  portion  of  which  is  faintly  colored,  possibly,  and  possibly 
not — that  is  to  be  determined  by  a  chemist,  are:  Jensen  &  Beck, 
3,000  pounds  a  year;  Hanley  Brothers,  ,^,000  pounds  a  year;  D.  0. 
Adams,  Milwaukee,  19,000  pounds  a  year;  L.  Linehan,  5,000  pounds  a 
year,  and  Hoenig  &  Co.,  of  Oshkosh,  (5,000  pounds  a  year.  These  are 
approximate  figures.  Perhaps  D.  O.  Adams,  of  Milwaukee,  who  said 
he  sold  60  pounds  a  day,  sells  more  or  less  than  the  figures  I  have 
given.  Sixty  pounds  a  day  during  six  days  of  the  week,  calling  320 
days  to  the  year,  would  amount  to  about  19,000  pounds. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Would  you  in  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  your 
State  prosecute  anyone  for  selling  goods  of  that  character  under  that 
clause,  that  it  had  an  ingredient  that  causes  it  to  look  like  butter? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  expected  that  question,  and  I  am  very  glad  the  gen- 
tleman asked  it,  because  what  we  want  to  get  at  are  the  facts.  So 
far  we  have  confined  our  prosecutions  to  more  flagrant  violations  of 
the  law  that  appear  upon  the  surface.  In  that  case,  for  the  reason  that 
the  butter  is  so  light,  the  violation  of  law  is  so  small,  and  they  have 
gone  beyond  the  border  line  to  such  a  limited  extent  that  it  is  extremely 
difficult  in  presenting  a  sample  like  that  to  convince  them  that  it  is 
colored  at  all,  even  if  the  chemist  can  extract  from  it  a  very  faint  indi- 
cation of  color*. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Suppose  you  should  find  no  color  whatever,  and 
yet  the  ingredients  were  so  used  that  it  resembled  butter? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  understand  the  question  of  the  gentleman  to  be  this — 
we  might  just  as  well  state  it.  1  think  I  can  state  it  better  than  he 
can. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Very  likely. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Do  I  believe  that  oleomargarine  should  be  manufactured 
by  the  use  of  other  ingredients  than  mere  coloring  matter  in  infinitesi- 
mal quantities,  so  that  it  can  resemble  yellow  butter?  I  say  that  I  do 
not.  I  think  it  is  against  public  policy.  1  think  it  means  deceiving 
the  customer  just  as  much  in  the  one  case  as  it  does  in  the  other. 

Now,  our  friends  on  the  other  side  come  up  here  and  say  that  we  are 
prejudiced,  that  we  are  simply  operating  through  class  interests;  and 
they  say  that  the  courts,  in  passing  upon  these  laws,  have  simply  said 
that  the  States,  in  the  exercise  of  their  police  power,  can  do  extraordi- 
nary things,  and  that  the  courts  can  not  inquire  into  the  exercise  of  that 
police  power  by  the  States.  Do  you  lawyers  upon  the  other  side  ?ay 
that  it  is  possible  for  a  State  legislature  to  pass  any  law  doing  any 
injury  to  any  legitimate  interest,  label  that  an  exercise  of  police  power, 
and  go  to  the  courts  of  your  State  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  and  claim  that  the  courts  can  say  nothing  about  that  legislative 
act  because  they  have  labeled  it  an  exercise  of  police  power  !  Not  by 
any  means. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Does  not  the  police  power  of  a  State  extend  to  all 
things  that  affect  life  and  health  ? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  435 

Mr.  ADAMS.  And  public  morals ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  And  public  safety? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Grouped  under  those  three  heads  are  a  great  many 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  things.  -  Anything  that  affects  your  health, 
anything  that  affects  the  public  morals,  anything  that  affects  your  per- 
sonal rights  or  the  public  rights,  comes  under  the  police  power  of  the 
State. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  true. 

Senator  ALLEN.  If  this  article  is  deleterious  to  health — and  that  is 
probably  the  claim — is  it  not  clearly  within  the  plenary  powers  of  the 
State  to  dispose  of  the  question  and  the  duty  of  the  courts  of  the  State 
to  enforce  that  legislation  ? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Why,  certainly ;  but  that  is  not  the  primary  claim,  Sen- 
ator. The  claim  is  made  in  these  various  States,  in  the  32  States  which 
have  passed  these  laws,  and  the  legislative  judgment  of  those  States 
has  been  convinced,  that  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  deceives  the 
final  purchaser,  and  they  regard  that  practice  as  against  public  policy. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  only  ground  upon  which  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  can  interfere  is  to  say  that  this  article,  which  has  an 
interest  in  commerce,  in  trade,  shall  be  labeled,  or  that  trade  shall  be 
conducted  in  a  given  way;  that  is,  that  it  shall  be  sold  white  or  sold 
colored  when  shipped  from  one  State  to  another  as  a  part  of  interstate 
commerce.  But  when  the  article  passes  one  State  line  and  into  another 
State,  and  becomes  mingled  with  the  commerce  of  that  State,  it  falls 
clearly  under  the  police  power  of  the  State  and  the  jurisdiction  of  Con- 
gress ceases. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  What  do  I  understand  the  Senator  to  wish  me  to  say 
with  reference  to  that?  A  very  amusing  thing  in  a  way  to  me  has 
appeared  in  this  discussion.  A  gentleman  representing  friends  of  this 
bill  has  insisted  that  there  is  some  doubt  as  to  whether  the  Plumley 
decision  gives  the  right  to  a  State  to  deal  with  original  packages  in  the 
State,  and  other  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  have  insisted  that  that 
decision  was  reversed  in  the  Schollenbarger  case. 

Senator  ALLEN.  That  was  all  settled  in  the  case  of  Brown  v.  The 
State  of  Maryland,  away  back  pretty  nearly  a  hundred  years  ago, 
where  Brown  imported  from  Europe  certain  liquors.  The  question 
was  whether  the  revenue  officers  of  the  State  could  levy  a  tax  upon 
those  liquors  before  they  became  mingled  with  the  commerce  of  the 
State.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Chief  Justice 
Marshall  writing  the  opinion — it  is  a  very  celebrated  case  and  has  always 
been  followed  since  then — held  that  until  it  was  mingled  and  became  a 
product  of  the  commerce  of  the  State  the  power  of  the  United  States 
continued  over  it,  but  the  moment  the  package  was  broken,  the  moment 
it  became  mingled  with  the  commerce  of  the  State,  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  General  Government  ceased  and  that  of  the  State  attached. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  But,  Senator,  in  the  Plumley  case  it  was  decided  by  the 
court  that  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  prohibiting  absolutely  the 
manufacture 

Senator  ALLEN.  Excuse  me  for  interrupting  you.  I  do  not  want  to 
interrupt  you  with  a  view  to  annoyance,  but  to  make  the  suggestion 
that  the  legal  distinction  between  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  and  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  is  possibly  well  understood  by  the 
committee. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  understand  that.  Of  course  we  must  refer  to  the  ques- 
tion because  our  friends  on  the  other  side  have  made  something  of  au 


436  OLEOMARGARINE. 

argument  here ;  but  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  leave  that  question  with 
the  gentlemen  of  the  committee. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  must  not  construe  anything  I  say  or  anything 
that  is  said  by  any  member  of  the  committee  as  indicating  any  opinion 
on  the  subject. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  have  not  the  slightest  sensitiveness  in  those  matters; 
but  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  decided  in  the  Plumley 
case  that  the  State  had  a  right  to  prohibit  and  that  it  was  a  proper 
exercise  of  police  power  to  prohibit  within  its  borders  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter. 

When  we  come  to  the  Schollenbarger  case  some  of  our  friends  on  the 
other  side  claim  that  was  a  reversal  of  that  decision,  and  other  gentle- 
men, lawyers,  on  the  other  side,  better  informed,  claim  it  was  not  a 
reversal  of  that  decision,  and  Judge  Lochran,  up  in  Minnesota,  a  Fed- 
eral judge,  who  had  made  a  decision  in  accordance  with  the  Plumley 
decision,  reversed  that  decision  after  the  decision  in  the  Plumley  case. 
I  am  perfectly  willing  to  admit  the  decision  in  the  Pennsylvania  case 
overcame  the  decision  in  the  Plumley  case  so  far  as  original  packages 
are  concerned ;  but  within  sixty  days  after  that  Judge  Adams,  the  judge 
of  a  district  court  in  St.  Louis,  made  exactly  the  same  decision  as  Judge 
Lochran,  and  the  first  section  of  the  bill  was  put  in  there,  not  because 
we  believe  the  decision  in  the  Plumley  case  had  been  reversed  by  the 
decision  in  the  Schollenbarger  case,  but  because  we  knew  that  Federal 
district  judges  disagree  and  had  disagreed  in  two  specific  cases  as  to  the 
meaning  of  that  decision.  We  wished  to  write  into  the  law  of  the  land 
the  views,  as  we  believe,  properly  laid  down  and  the  principles  properly 
established  in  the  decision  of  the  Plumley  case. 

I  am  not  going  to  take  up  very  much  time  reading  decisions  upon  this 
law,  and  it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  arguing  about  the  constitutionality 
of  the  law,  but  to  give  to  this  committee,  not  only  for  its  benefit  but  for 
the  benefit  of  such  Senators  as  may  read  this  report,  and  who  may  desire 
by  the  reference  to  this  decision  and  the  few  sentences  which  are  read 
here,  to  have  the  decisions  and  read  them  and  see  upon  what  grounds 
the  courts  have  made  the  decisions  that  they  have  made. 

Here  is  an  extract  from  a  case  in  Twelfth  Missouri  Appeals : 

The  mere  fact  that  experts  may  pronounce  an  article  intended  for  human  food  to 
be  harmless  does  not  render  it  incompetent  for  the  legislature  to  prohibit  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  the  article.  The  test  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  police  regula- 
tion prohibiting  the  making  and  vending  of  a  particular  article  of  food  is  not  alone 
whether  it  is  in  part  unwholesome  and  injurious.  If  an  article  of  food  is  of  such  a 
character  that  few  persons  will  eat  it,  knowing  its  real  character,  if  at  the  time 
it  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  can  be  imposed  upon  the  public  as  an  article  of  food 
which  it  is  not,  and  yet  to  which  and  against  which  there  is  no  protest,  and  if 
in  addition  to  this  there  is  probable  ground  for  believing  that  the  only  way  to 
prevent  the  public  from  being  defrauded  into  the  purchasing  of  the  counter- 
feit article  for  the  genuine  is  to  prohibit  altogether  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  the 
former,  then  we  think  that  such  a  prohibition  may  stand  as  a  reasonable  police  regu- 
lation, although  the  article  prohibited  is  indeed  innocuous,  and  although  its  produc- 
tion might  be  found  beneficial  to  the  public  if  in  buying  it  they  could  distinguish  it 
from  the  production  of  which  it  is  an  imitation. 

Further: 

The  manufacturer  may  brand  it  with  its  real  name.  It  may  carry  that  brand  with 
it  into  the  hands  of  the  broker  and  commission  merchant  and  even  into  the  hands 
of  the  retail  grocer,  but  there  it  will  betaken  off  and  it  will  be  sold  to  the  consumer 
as  real  butter  or  it  will  not  be  sold  at  all.  The  fact  that  the  present  state  of  the 
public  taste,  the  public  judgment,  or  the  public  prejudice  with  regard  to  it  is  such 
that  it  can  not  be  sold  except  by  cheating  the  ultimate  purchaser  into  the  belief 
that  it  is  the  real  butter  stamps  with  fraud  the  entire  business  of  making  and  vend- 
ing it  and  furnishes  a  justih' cation  for  the  police  regulation  prohibiting  the  making 
and  vending  of  it  altogether. 


OLEOMAKGAEINE.  437 

I  have  not  very  much  time,  Mr.  Chairman.  The  views  which  could 
be  presented  to  this  committee  will  tnke  more  time  than  I  could  be 
allowed.  I  am  sorry  for  it,  because  I  believe  I  can  present  facts  which 
will  be  considered  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  In  my  State 
what  happens?  We  have,  comparatively,  a  good  execution  of  the  law 
there.  We  have  a  stringent  law.  I  drew  it  myself,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  an  able  attorney,  scrutinizing  at  the  same  time  the  statute  of 
Massachusetts  upon  which  it  was  based,  and  after  the  decision  of  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court  in  the  Plumley  case,  and  up  to  that  time 
we  had  been  unable  to  stop  to  any  extent  the  fraudulent  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine in  the  State  of  Wisconsin.  I  was  appointed  dairy  commis- 
sioner shortly  after  that  law  went  into  effect. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Will  you  state  what  your  law  was  before  that 
time? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  It  was  simply  a  labeling  law,  nothing  else.  I  arrested 
three  men  at  my  home,  one  of  whom  was  a  neighbor  and  a  friend.  The 
oleomargarine  manufacturers  of  Chicago  supplied  the  gentleman  ar- 
rested with  the  means  of  defense.  They  employed  an  ex- Attorney- 
General  of  the  United  States,  a  bright,  able,  vigorous,  and  skilled  man 
before  a  jury.  It  took  us  two  days  to  get  a  jury.  The  citizens  knew 
me,  knew  the  ex- Attorney-General,  and  knew  the  defendant,  and  they 
did  not  want  to  go  into  the  jury  box  at  all.  We  finally  secured  a  jury. 
We  had  a  three  days'  trial,  and  then  we  had  a  disagreement,  seven  men 
voting  for  conviction  and  five  for  acquittal. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  What  was  the  charge? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  charge  was  that  of  selling  colored  oleomargarine  in 
violation  of  law  for  exactly  what  it  was.  We  tried  the  case  again. 
The  jury  went  out  and  returned  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the  State  in  less 
than  five  minutes.  I  went  down  into  the  city  of  Milwaukee  and  made 
16  arrests,  13  for  selling  in  violation  of  the  color  law  of  the  State 
and  3  under  the  old  labeling  law,  which  had  not  been  repealed.  My 
purpose  was  to  find  out  which  kind  of  a  law  I  could  enforce;  and  I 
found  out.  I  won  every  solitary  case  under  the  auticolor  law  in  that 
court,  although  the  judge  said  he  did  not  believe  in  it.  He  was 
opposed  to  it  and  criticised  the  law  from  the  bench.  Officials  about 
the  court  room  were  opposed  to  it,  public  sentiment  in  the  court-house 
was  opposed  to  it,  and  there  were  half  a  dozen  lawyers  on  the  other 
side  opposed  to  the  one  lawyer  representing  the  State;  and  yet  in 
spite  of  that  the  principle  underlying  these  laws,  the  compelling  of 
men  to  be  honest  in  the  sale  of  a  counterfeit  food  product,  was  so  strong 
that  a  judge  and  a  jury  prejudiced  and  opposed  to  the  law  were  com- 
pelled to  make  such  decisions  and  such  a  verdict  as  that  the  law  was 
sustained;  and  not  only  that,  but  the  demonstration  was  so  strong 
that  the  principal  defendant  in  those  cases  came  to  me  and  admitted 
that  he  was  wrong,  and  that  never  again  would  he  violate  a  statute  as 
just  as  that. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  You  have  stated  that  it  is  possible  in  the  State 
of  Wisconsin  to  sell  the  uncolored  article? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  do. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  And  that  it  is  sold  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
business? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Will  the  Senator  permit  me  an  explanation,  to  say  what 
I  forgot  to  say  before?  Up  in  Oshkosh  this  gentleman  from  whom  I 
have  obtained  an  uncolored  sample  was  violating  the  law.  I  went  up 
there  and  arrested  him.  I  talked  with  him  about  it  and  I  said:  "Why 
do  you  do  this  ?  You  have  a  good  business.  This  is  the  best  butter 


438  OLEOMARGARINE. 

shop  in  the  city  of  Oshkosh.  You  have  the  best  trade.  Why  do  you 
violate  this  law?"  "  Why,"  he  said,  u  I  did  not  suppose  it  was  a  vio- 
lation. The  representatives  of  the  Chicago  manufacturers  came  up 
here  and  said  there  was  no  reason  why  I  should  not  sell  it;  that  if  there 
was  any  law  it  was  unconstitutional;  that  the  courts  have  turned  it 
down;"  and  he  said:  ui^ot  thinking  very  much  about  it,  I  have  been 
selling  it."  I  want  to  say  to  this  committee  that  when  my  inspector 
went  up  there  and  bought  a  sample  of  colored  oleomargarine  that  man 
was  selling  it  at  either  23  or  20  cents  a  pound;  and  he  stopped  the  busi- 
ness and  went  to  selling  the  uncolored  butterine  at  16  cents  a  pound. 
The  price  of  butterine  sold  from  that  store  was  reduced  7  cents  a  pound, 
and  the  laboring  people  of  Oshkosh  who  were  buying  it  got  the  butter 
for  less  money  simply  because  the  law  of  the  State  was  enforced. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Then  it  is  possible  to  sell  to  the  consumers  uncol- 
ored butterine? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Certainly  it  is. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  You  mentioned  a  country  in  Europe,  Denmark, 
where  that  is  done. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  you  know  the  condition  of  that  trade  in 
other  countries  in  Europe? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  know  that  so  far  as  England  is  concerned  they  have  a 
law  there  prohibiting  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  for  butter.  As  to  the 
details  of  that  law,  and  the  extent  to  which  it  is  carried  out,  I  am  not 
informed. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  not  know  that  in  all  foreign  countries 
wherever  oleomargarine  is  sold  it  is  sold  precisely  of  the  same  color  as 
the  butter  that  is  sold  in  those  countries,  whether  it  is  one  thing  or 
another? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  one  country  of  which  I  have  definite  knowledge  is 
Denmark.  There  they  prohibit  its  coloring  and  compel  it  to  be  sold  in 
its  own  color  and  in  a  separate  place  in  the  store  in  which  it  is  sold. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Is  butter  colored  there? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  think  very  likely  it  is.    I  hope  so. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  What  proportion  of  the  107,000,000  pounds  of 
oleomargarine  that  was  sold  last  year  do  you  think  could  be  sold  in  the 
United  States  if  it  was  not  colored? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  My  estimate  is  based  on  these  samples,  provided  none 
of  these  samples  are  colored.  These  gentlemen  think  they  are  selling 
uncolored  butterine.  I  will  concede  that  some  of  these  samples  are  a 
little  colored. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  This  one  is  certainly  highly  colored. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  1  should  judge  so.  Providing  this  law  goes  into  effect, 
and  providing  that  it  prohibits  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  colored 
oleomargarine,  and  provided  there  are  as  many  licenses  out  in  the 
United  States  after  the  passage  of  the  law  as  there  are  now — there  tire 
now  9,028  licenses  in  this  country — I  believe  there  would  be  sold  on  an 
average  at  least  5,000  pounds  a  year  by  each  of  the  9,000  retailers  of 
the  United  States. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  you  not  think  if  every  merchant,  instead  of 
becoming  an  apologist  for  oleomargarine,  practically,  in  many  cases, 
denying  that  it  is  oleomargarine  and  claiming  that  it  is  butter,  should 
become  literally  an  agent  for  the  sale  of  the  legitimate  article,  without 
these  prosecutions  and  fears  of  prosecution,  that  it  would  greatly 
increase  the  sale  of  it? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  There  is  no  question  about  it.     These  gentlemen  upon 


OLEOMARGARINE.  439 

the  other  side  know  perfectly  well,  as  I  know,  who  have  come  in  contact 
personally  with  hundreds  of  merchants  in  my  State,  that  they  would  be 
glad  to  sell  oleomargarine  under  those  conditions,  but  they  do  not  want 
to  sell  it  in  competition  with  other  merchants  who  are  willing  to  sell  it 
in  violation  of  law.  This  will  be  a  premium  upon  honesty.  Many  of 
the  manufacturers  are  perfectly  willing  to  make  their  butterine  uncol- 
ored,  and  do  not  desire  to  build  up  a  fraudulent  business.  One  of  them 
has  admitted  it  to  me,  and  he  said  to  me:  "I  will  concede  to  you  that 
the  time  is  coming  when  we  shall  make  this  article  uncolored,  sell  it  at 
a  reasonable  profit  for  what  it  is,  and  build  up  a  business  here  in  this 
country  which  will  make  the  dairymen  shake  in  their  boots."  I  said: 
"Very  well,  gentlemen,  if  you  can  do  that  we  shall  be  compelled  to 
shake,  because  we  will  have  no  argument  in  our  defense." 

If  this  substitute  is  reasonably  wholesome,  why  do  you  not  take  it 
and  go  into  the  markets  under  its  own  color  and  do  what  you  can  with 
it  and  obtain  a  reasonable  business?  But  the  trouble  is,  they  come 
up  into  my  city,  and  they  say  to  some  of  the  grocers  there:  "You  sell 
this  in  violation  of  law  and  we  will  protect  you.  We  will  pay  the 
expenses."  Some  of  these  firms  are  practically  in  a  conspiracy  to 
break  down  the  laws  of  the  various  States  in  this  Union;  and  so  we 
come  to  Congress  knowing  that  you  gentlemen  in  the  United  States 
Senate  and  in  the  lower  House  know  perfectly  well  that  it  is  not 
dishonest  to  exercise  the  taxing  power  of  this  Government  to  stop  a 
great  fraud.  It  has  been  done  before.  It  was  done  in  1886.  It  was 
done  in  the  passage  of  the  filled  cheese  bill.  It  was  done  when  we 
passed  a  law  taxing  adulterated  flour  and  providing  for  labeling.  Our 
friends  said  these  measures  were  all  unconstitutional.  They  said  they 
were  dishonest.  They  said  that  Congress  could  not  do  it;  but  did 
they  ever  take  a  case  to  the  Supreme  Court?  Did  the  law  of  1886  ever 
go  to  the  Supreme  Court?  I  came  down  here  three  times  in  behalf  of 
the  filled  cheese  bill.  I  went  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means  over  in  the  other  House. 

Judge  Crisp,  of  Georgia,  and  Mr.  Grosvenor,  of  Ohio,  insisted  that  I 
should  discuss  the  matter  of  the  wholesomeness  of  filled  cheese.  I  said : 
"  Why,  I  don't  propose  to  waste  a  minute  on  that.  It  is  not  a  question 
of  the  public  health ;  it  is  a  question  of  honesty.  Here  are  a  lot  of  fel- 
lows taking  skimmed  milk,  taking  the  natural  butter  fat  all  out,  put- 
ting the  artificial  fat  in,  and  making  an  inferior  product,  calling  it  full 
cream  cheese,  sending  it  into  the  markets  of  the  South,  sending  it 
across  the  ocean,  and  thereby,  by  placing  that  inferior  product  in  the 
markets  of  Europe,  cutting  down  our  exportation  of  cheese  from 
120,000,000  pounds  to  38,000,000  pounds  in  a  year."  That  bill  was  passed 
by  the  American  Congress  simply  to  stop  that  fraud  and  to  build  up 
and  maintain  the  trade  of  this  nation.  We  do  not  come  here  represent- 
ing the  farming  interests  of  this  country  to  demand  class  legislation. 
We  do  not  want  it.  We  have  no  right  to  come  here  and  ask  an  unjust 
thing  simply  because  there  are  millions  of  us.  By  no  means.  If  I 
were  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  and  every  man  in  my  district 
wanted  me  to  vote  for  an  unjust  and  an  unfair  law,  I  would  not  do  it. 
We  come  here  and  ask  you  to  do  what  we  believe  is  right.  We  do  not 
want  any  protection  from  legitimate  competition,  but  because  of  our 
numbers,  because  of  our  industry,  because  of  the  way  in  which  we  have 
placed  States  and  built  up  a  wholesome  prosperity,  we  come  to  the 
American  Congress  and  we  ask  for  justice  and  protection,  not  against 
competition,  but  against  fraud. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Is  not  your  industry  more  prosperous  now  than  it  ever 
was  before? 


440  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir, 

(The  committee,  at  12  o'clock  and  10  minutes  p.  m.,  took  a  recess 
until  2.30  o'clock  p.  m.) 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  committee  resumed  its  session. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  should  like  to  give  way  for  five  minutes  to  a  represen- 
tative from  Maryland,  Mr.  Medairy,  for  a  simple  statement  of  not  over 
five  minutes  in  length, 

STATEMENT  OF  SUMMEBFIELD  B.  MEDAIRY. 

Mr.  MEDAIRY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel  that  there  is  very  little  for  me  to 
say  in  the  interest  of  the  dairy  more  than  has  been  said  by  those  who 
have  preceded  me.  I  have  listened  with  great  satisfaction  and  instruc- 
tion to  those  who  have  addressed  the  committee  with  respect  to  this  bill. 
I  realize  the  fact  that  there  really  is  nothing  more  important  before  the 
committee  than  the  bill  itself,  which  carries  with  it  the  charge  that  oleo- 
margarine, as  manufactured  and  sold  to-day,  is  sold  surreptitiously,  which 
accounts  for  the  magnitude  of  the  industry.  That  is  demonstrated  by  the 
experience  of  those  who  are  practically  engaged  in  the  dairy  business. 

The  city  of  Baltimore  about  two  years  ago  was  flooded  with  the  sale 
of  oleomargarine,  surreptitiously  sold  to  such  an  extent  that  it  was 
felt  by  every  one  engaged  in  the  dairy  business.  We  felt  that  some- 
thing ought  to  be  done.  The  outcome  of  it  was  the  organization  of  an 
association  for  the  protection  of  the  dairy  interests  and  of  the  people 
of  our  city  against  the  imposition  that  was  being  practiced  by  the 
unscrupulous  vender  of  oleomargarine,  made  possible  by  the  fact  that 
oleomargarine  was  colored  in  semblance  of  yellow  butter. 

During  two  years  I  personally  supervised  the  administration  of  our 
law,  and  I  found  that  we  were  deficient  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  many 
people  were  unable  to  distinguish  oleomargarine  from  butter  and 
thereby  suffered  the  penalty.  At  the  last  meeting  of  our  legislature, 
Mr.  Hewes,  our  attorney,  and  I  went  to  Annapolis  and  succeeded  in 
having  passed  an  anticolor  law,  which  has  aided  greatly  in  the  result  we 
sought  to  accomplish.  During  that  time,  as  well  as  my  memory  serves 
me,  out  of  nearly  one  hundred  and  forty-one  cases — I  think  that  was  the 
exact  number,  although  I  may  be  mistaken  in  regard  to  one  or  two  cases — 
there  was  not  a  single  retail  sale  in  the  course  of  prosecution  but 
what  was  sold  as  and  for  butter  by  the  storekeeper  or  the  restaurateur, 
and  in  many  instances  we  found  that  the  people  who  were  being  pros- 
ecuted were  innocent  of  any  intention  of  violating  the  law,  but  had  been 
deceived  by  the  vender,  who  in  turn  had  bought  his  product  from  the 
manufacturer's  agent,  but  had,  subsequent  to  its  purchase,  taken  the 
product  from  the  original  package  and  placed  it  in  a  basket  or  a  box,  a 
vessel  of  some  kind,  and  sold  it  as  and  for  butter.  The  uninitiated, 
not  being  able  to  distinguish  one  from  the  other  by  virtue  of  its 
semblance,  bought  the  same  for  butter  and  in  turn  sold  it  as  such. 

We  had  many  such  cases  in  the  course  of  prosecution,  the  benefit 
derived  therefrom  inuring  to  the  manufacturers,  to  the  discomfiture  and 
to  the  detriment  of  those  who  innocently  bought  the  stuff  for  butter. 
We  found  that  to  be  the  case  not  only  with  respect  to  a  few  store- 
keepers, but  with  respect  to  the  hotel  keeper,  to  the  restauranteur,  to 
the  lunch- counter  proprietor.  We  found  without  an  exception  that 
they  bought  their  goods  from  the  manufacturer's  agent  as  and  for  what 
'  it  was,  but  in  turn  palmed  it  off  on  the  consumers  as  and  for  butter. 
That  has  been  our  experience  for  the  last  eighteen  months.  Out  of  the 
hundred  and  forty-one  cases  there  was  not  an  exception  but  that  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  441 

stuff  was  sold  surreptitiously,  and  all  accomplished  by  the  fact  that 
this  stuff  was  sold  for  that  which  it  was  not,  made  possible  by  the  fact 
that  the  manufacturers  colored  it  in  semblance  of  yellow  butter. 

Mr.  Adams,  who  has  preceded  me,  has  very  clearly  demonstrated  the 
iniquity  of  this  state  of  affairs  and  how  the  fraud  is  made  possible.  It 
requires  an  expert  to  determine  one  from  the  other,  and  as  an  evidence 
of  that,  no  later  than  this  very  day,  within  the  last  hour,  in  company 
with  Mr.  Hewes,  I  repaired  to  one  of  your  principal  hotels  in  Washing- 
ton. We  called  for  our  dinner.  The  waiter  brought  us  our  dinner. 
Upon  the  table  he  placed  two  plates,  upon  which  was  something  sup- 
posed to  be  butter.  We  examined  it,  and  I  immediately  called  the 
waiter  to  my  side.  I  said:  "Take  this  back.  Tell  your  proprietor  that 
I  want  butter,  and  not  oleomargarine."  In  support  of  that  statement 
I  have  brought  both  here  to  you  to-day.  These  are  actual  facts,  Sena- 
tors. The  proprietor  I  afterwards  called  to  my  side  and  asked  him  the 
question,  "Did  you  buy  this  for  butter  or  oleomargarine?"  I  said,  "I 
want  a  direct  answer,"  and  he  admitted  that  he  bought  it  for  oleomar- 
garine and  served  it  to  us  as  and  for  butter.  We  then  called  for  a 
piece  of  butter,  which  he  furnished. 

Mr.  HEWES.  Here  [exhibiting]  is  the  oleomargarine  he  served  first 
and  there  is  the  butter  which  he  gave  afterwards. 

Mr.  MEDAIBY.  That  came  from  a  hotel  this  very  day.  It  is  an  object 
lesson. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Did  you  ask  for  butter? 

Mr.  HEWES.  We  asked  for  dinner. 

Mr.  MED  AIRY.  Then  we  asked  him  to  bring  some  butter,  and  I 
tasted  it,  as  I  always  do. 

Mr.  HEWES  [exhibiting].  They  are  almost  identical. 

Mr.  MEDAIRY.  These  are  the  two  samples.  That  has  been  my 
experience  almost  without  interruption  in — I  do  not  know  how  many 
instances. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Which  do  you  say  is  the  butter? 

Mr.  MEDAIRY.  I  can  tell  you. 

Mr.  HEWES.  Anybody  can  tell. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  can  tell  which  is  which? 

Mr.  MEDIARY.  I  am  an  expert  in  the  business  and  claim  to  be  able 
to  tell  at  any  time. 

Mr.  HEWES.  Anybody  can  tell.     If  you  smell  it,  you  can  determine. 

Mr.  MEDAIRY.  Do  you  prefer  that  I  shall  tell  you? 

Senator  ALLEN.  My  judgment  is  that  that  [indicating]  is  the  oleo. 

Mr.  MEDAIRY.  Yes;  that  is  right. 

Mr.  HEWES.  You  can  smell  it. 

Mr.  MEDAIRY.  That  is  why  we  ask  for  legislation  to  preclude  the 
possibility  of  such  deception,  and  by  such  deception  as  this  the  busi- 
ness has  grown  to  the  magnitude  which  they  have  admitted  that  it  has. 
Gentlemen  on  the  other  side  have  stood  up  in  this  room  in  my  presence 
and  have  admitted  that  unless  they  colored  the  oleomargarine  as  you 
see  that  sample  colored  they  can  not  sell  it.  1  think,  with  all  due 
respect  to  the  representative  of  every  industry  that  goes  to  make  up 
oleomargarine,  that  it  is  a  reflection  upon  a  Senator  of  the  United  States 
to  come  here  and  ask  him  to  support  a  measure  that  will  tend  to  such 
fraud.  I  do  not  doubt  for  one  moment  that  the  city  of  Baltimore  is 
but  an  index  to  the  principal  cities  of  the  United  States. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  hotel  did  this  come  from? 

Mr.  MEDAIRY.  The  hotel  opposite  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  depot.  I 
think  it  is  called  the  B.  and  O.  hotel.  I  called  the  proprietor  to  the 


442  OLEOMARGARINE. 

counter  and  asked  him  the  question,  and  he  admitted  to  me  that  it  was 
oleomargarine. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  What  law  did  he  violate? 

Mr.  MED  AIRY.  I  do  not  know,  sir.  I  am  not  competent  to  argue  that 
question.  I  simply  know  that  in  my  own  city  we  have  a  color  law 
passed  by  our  last  legislature.  We  have  yet  to  have  an  arrest  of  a 
dealer,  other  than  a  manufacturer's  agent,  and  my  statement  can  be 
verified  upon  investigation,  wherein  anyone,  without  exception,  man, 
woman,  or  child,  sold  colored  oleomargarine  as  and  for  such.  I  do  not 
want  to  trespass  too  long  upon  the  courtesy  of  my  friend.  I  thank  the 
committee  for  its  courtesy. 

STATEMENT  OF  H.  E.  ADAMS— Resumed. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  hold  in  iny  hand  the  prospectus  of  the  Standard 
Butterine  Company,  organized,  1  think,  under  the  laws  of  West  Vir- 
ginia, having  a  capital  stock  of  $1,000,000.  The  purpose  of  this  com- 
pany is  to  manufacture  butterine  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  The 
total  cost  of  100  pounds  of  butterine  or  of  oleomargarine — those  two 
terms  are  used  interchangeably  and  mean  the  same  thing  in  this  dis- 
cussion— is  $8.92,  a  little  less  than  9  cents  a  pound,  including  the  tax 
thereon.  In  the  statement  of  this  prospectus  I  find  the  following: 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  above  cost,  when  deducted  from  the  market  price  of  13 
cents  a  pound,  shows  a  net  profit  of  $4.08.  It  will  be  seen  that  even  if  the  com- 
pany produce  only  the  400,000  pounds  per  month  for  which  it  now  has  definite 
orders,  a  net  profit  of  over  $16,320  a  month,  or  $195,840  a  year  would  be  assured. 
This  would  be  8  per  cent  on  the  preferred  stock  of  the  company  or  20  per  cent  on 
the  entire  capitalization.  The  Standard  Butterine  Company  is  incorporated  with 
a  capital  stock  of  $1,000,000,  divided  as  follows : 

An  attorney  of  this  company  appeared  before  this  committee  yester- 
day and  made  an  argument  against  the  Grout  bill.  The  burden  of  his 
argument,  as  I  understood  it,  analyzing  it  and  getting  at  his  purpose, 
is  that  this  is  a  sort  of  philanthropic  institution,  designed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  giving  the  poor  men  of  this  country  a  cheap  substitute  for 
butter.  In  other  words,  he  practically  made  the  claim  before  this  com- 
mittee that  this  company,  with  a  million  dollars'  worth  of  capital, 
should  be  permitted  to  do  business  unrestricted  by  State  or  national 
law;  a  business  which  would  enable  them  to  manufacture  a  counterfeit 
of  butter  in  the  form  and  under  the  color  of  butter,  and  in  the  main  be 
sold  at  or  approximately  at  a  butter  price  to  the  laboring  men  of  this 
country,  and  that  it  is  a  right  which  the  laboring  men  demand  they 
should  have.  The  mere  statement  of  thecase  is  argumentenough  against 
it.  In  the  course  of  his  remarks  he  drew  rather  a  poetic  picture  of  the 
present  conditions  of  the  country  village.  He  alluded  to  the  disap- 
pearance of  certain  industries  in  these  country  villages,  and  regretted, 
in  a  way,  the  disappearance  of  the  village  carpenter,  and  called  atten- 
tion to  the  mysterious  disappearance  of  the  village  tinker.  I  do  not 
know  where  the  village  tinker  has  gone.  1  know  some  of  them  have 
gone  into  the  practice  of  the  profession  of  law;  some  of  them  are 
undoubtedly  upon  farms:  but  the  whole  tenor  and  drift  of  his  argument 
was  to  this  effect  that,  in  the  inarch  of  progress  that  is  going  on,  in  the 
changes  which  are  going  on  in  the  industrial  world,  some  men  and 
some  industries  are  liable  to  be  wiped  off  of  the  face  of  the  earth,  and 
that  all  these  changes  are  legitimate.  The  inference  from  his  argu- 
ment was  that  this  oleomargarine  was  of  such  superior  character  that 
if  it  was  not  restricted  by  State  or  national  law  it  would  go  on  and 
eventually  eliminate  the  dairy  farms.  That  was  the  inevitable  deduc- 
tion from  the  logic  of  that  illustration. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  443 

Now,  I  want  to  say  to  him,  and  I  want  to  say  to  this  committee,  that 
we  appreciate  the  way  in  which  modern  inventions  come  in  here  and 
change  things.  We  are  perfectly  willing  to  accept  the  fact  that  oleo- 
margarine under  its  own  color  is  a  product  of  modern  genius  and  is  a 
substitute,  to  a  certain  extent,  of  legitimate  products;  but  we  insist 
that  it  is  not  in  the  line  of  progress  to  bring  into  the  American  market 
something  in  the  form  of  a  counterfeit;  that  it  does  not  pose  as  being 
in  ^he  line  of  progress  simply  because  it  has  some  merits,  because  it 
exists  in  the  market  and  masquerades  there-  in  the  form  of  a  more 
valuable  and  a  better  product.  Why,  our  friends  say  that  we  have  not 
brought  any  evidence  to  prove  here  that  oleomargarine  is  not  as  good 
as  butter.  We  have  brought  some  evidence,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  I 
want  to  suggest  to  the  consideration  of  this  committee,  so  far  as  the 
relative  merits  of  these  two  articles  are  concerned,  that  I  do  not 
believe — this  is  a  statement  of  belief — that  any  member  of  this  Senate 
Committee  on  Agriculture,  in  view  of  all  that  has  been  claimed  for 
oleomargarine,  or  that  any  of  the  90  Senators  of  the  United  States,  or 
that  any  one  of  the  357  members  of  the  lower  House,  at  any  time  or  any 
place,  ever  went  into  a  restaurant  or  a  hotel  or  any  other  place  where 
food  could  be  found  and  called  for  oleomargarine.  No  matter  what  the 
attorneys  or  the  persons  interested  in  this  business  may  say,  the  judg- 
ment of  men  in  this  country  is  that  butter  is  superior  to  oleomargarine 
as  a  food  product.  They  go  into  these  hotels  and  restaurants  and 
places  where  it  is  sold,  and  call  for  what?  Did  you  or  any  of  you  ever 
know  of  a  man  who  went  in  and  called  for  butterine! 

Our  friends  say  the  Wadsworth  substitute  is  a  proper  substitute  for 
this  measure,  and  that  substitute  is  designed  to  prevent  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  for  anything  except  what  it  is.  Let  me  tell  you  what 
the  facts  are.  In  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  from  which  I  come,  and  where 
for  six  years  it  has  been  my  purpose  and  my  effort  to  enforce  the  dairy 
and  food  laws  of  that  State,  this  is  the  way  they  deceive  the  people 
there.  To  a  very  considerable  extent  we  enforce  the  law.  The  manu- 
facturer sells  his  oleomargarine  for  what  it  is.  The  wholesaler  sells  it 
for  what  it  is.  The  retailer,  as  a  rule,  buys  it  for  what  it  is;  and  the 
retailer  in  Wisconsin,  as  a  rule,  sells  it  for  what  it  is,  but  the  men  and 
the  women  who  buy  the  great  bulk  of  that  product  in  the  State  of 
Wisconsin,  buying  it  for  what  it  is,  place  it  upon  the  tables  of  their 
boarding  houses  and  hotels  and  restaurants  and  along  the  counters,  and 
sell  it  in  response  to  a  call  and  a  desire  for  what?  Oleomargarine? 
Not  for  one  instant.  It  is  sold  in  response  to  a  call  for  butter,  to  peo- 
ple who  do  not  want  oleomargarine  and  do  not  ask  for  it.  Not  only 
that,  but  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  the  law  is  evaded  in  another  way. 
Our  friends  in  Chicago  have  agents  in  that  State.  These  agents  go 
around  to  the  different  people  whom  they  think  may  want  to  buy  oleo- 
margarine. They  take  orders  and  those  orders  are  sent  to  the  Chicago 
dealer  and  the  goods  are  sent  to  the  final  purchaser  in  the  care  of  this 
agent  and  delivered  by  him  to  them ;  and  undoubtedly,  although  we 
can  not  prove  it  in  prosecutions,  these  agents  take  the  difference  be- 
tween the  wholesale  price  and  the  retail  price. 

Under  the  law  of  Wisconsin  an  agent  is  not  a  seller,  and  we  are 
unable  to  reach  the  traffic.  That  is  the  way  they  avoid  it  in  our  State. 
In  the  main  our  prosecutions  are  successful,  but  not  always.  Let  me 
give  you  as  an  illustration  one  case  where  they  were  not.  I  sent  my 
inspector  into  a  city  in  northern  Wisconsin  having  a  population  of 
30,000.  He  bought  some  colored  oleomargarine  sold  by  a  dealer  in 
violation  of  law.  We  appeared  in  court.  Our  testimony  was  abso- 


444  OLEOMARGARINE. 

lutely  perfect  so  far  as  proof  was  concerned.  It  was  not  doubted  or 
denied  in  any  way  by  the  attorney  for  the  defense.  The  attorney  for 
the  defense  was  the  mayor  of  that  city — a  skilled  lawyer.  He  came 
before  the  jury.  He  did  not  put  a  single  witness  upon  the  stand — not 
one.  He  simply  said  to  the  jury,  "  Gentlemen,  this  man  who  has  been 
arrested  has  been  a  citizen  of  this  city  many  years.  He  is  a  good  man. 
He  pays  his  taxes.  He  is  regarded  as  honest.  These  men  who  are 
trying  to  enforce  this  State  law  have  come  up  here  and  induced  him  to 
break  it.  He  is  a  good  fellow."  There  was  a  saloon  keeper  on  the 
jury.  He  said,  "This  law  is  like  the  Sunday  closing  law,  not  designed 
for  enforcement.  Now,  what  you  want  to  do,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  is 
to  go  out  and  acquit  this  man."  They  went  out  and  in  three  minutes 
they  acquitted  him,  in  spite  of  the  evidence,  in  spite  of  the  law.  We 
go  down  to  the  city  of  Racine  and  arrest  men  for  selling  colored  but- 
terine,  and  they  are  aided  by  their  friends  in  Chicago.  They  employ 
the  most  talented  attorneys  in  the  city.  He  comes  in  and  secures 
postponements  and  motions  from  one  court  to  another,  and  it  comes  up 
for  final  trial  in  the  circuit  court.  The  circuit  judge  disappears — prop- 
erly, no  doubt— and  another  judge  from  a  distant  county  comes  in  and 
throws  the  case  bodily  out  o£  court,  because  he  says  the  complaint  was 
improperly  drawn;  and  yet  every  case  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  that 
has  been  brought  before  the  best  judges  in  that  State  has  been  based 
upon  the  same  form  of  complaint — a  complaint  used  in  Massachusetts, 
a  complaint  used  in  New  York,  a  complaint  which  has  practically  been 
passed  upon  by  the  highest  courts  in  the  land.  That  is  the  way  this 
law  is  evaded  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin.  I  can  not  give  you  all  the 
details.  I  give  you  some  of  them  because  my  time  is  limited. 

Senator  ALLEN.  It  ought  to  be  a  very  easy  matter  to  draw  a  suffi- 
cient complaint. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  It  was  sufficient.  The  judge  simply  turned  it  down. 
All  the  authorities  were  arrayed  behind  that  complaint,  without  a  sin- 
gle exception.  But  I  just  give  this  as  an  illustration  of  the  difficulty 
of  enforcing  the  laws  of  my  State. 

One  of  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  fair-minded,  as  I  believe,  as  a 
rule,  and  courteous  always,  came  in  here  the  other  day  and  made  a 
statement  which  I  think  on  reflection  he  would  be  willing  to  change. 
He  says  the  representatives  and  friends  of  this  Grout  bill  have  come 
in  here  and  made  the  cowardly  statement  to  this  committee  that  their 
laws  were  not  enforced.  I  would  ask  the  gentleman  and  ask  the  com- 
mittee if  it  is  cowardly  for  the  representative  of  any  interest  to  come 
in  here  and  tell  the  truth.  We  say  it  is  not  enforced  to  the  extent  that 
we  desire.  We  say  that  in  the  great  State  of  New  York,  represented 
before  this  committee  by  a  dairy  and  food  commissioner  who  for  seven- 
teen years  has  been  improving  by  his  own  mind  and  judgment  the  laws 
of  that  State  by  necessary  amendments,  and  who  has  enforced  to  a 
great  extent  the  laws  of  New  York,  the  facts  are  honestly  admitted. 
The  admission  includes  his  assistant,  who  came  before  this  committee 
and  said  that  in  one  thousand  cases  in  the  city  of  New  York  during  the 
last  three  or  four  years  in  every  solitary  one  of  them  he  secured  convic- 
tions, and  in  every  case  the  product  was  bought  for  and  as  butter  by 
the  people  who  wanted  butter. 

Why,  gentlemen,  you  talk  about  the  merits  of  this  law  and  you  say 
that  you  men  who  represent  the  dairy  commissioners  ought  to  go  out 
and  enforce  it.  We  do  go  out.  We  do  the  best  we  can.  In  the  State 
of  Wisconsin  only  700,000  pounds  were  sold  last  year,  and  that  is  only 
one-third  of  a  pound  of  oleomargarine  to  every  inhabitant  in  that  State. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  445 

They  say,  "If  it  is  so  small,  why  do  you  want  it?'7  We  want  it 
because  Wisconsin  is  a  great  dairy  State;  because  we  manufacture 
annually  80,000,000  pounds  of  butter;  because  that  butter  is  sent  into 
all  the  markets  of  the  world.  We  are  willing  to  meet  any  competition 
which  is  legitimate  in  those  markets.  We  are  willing  to  stand  up 
against  any  product  of  science  or  art  or  skill  which  these  gentlemen 
may  devise  in  the  open  markets,  but  we  do  not  want  to  stand  up  against 
a  counterfeit  which,  as  the  courts  have  said,  is  of  such  a  character  that 
the  average  consumer  can  not  distinguish,  and  is  thereby  compelled  to 
buy  a  thing  which  he  does  not  want. 

Have  we  no  testimony  ?  Is  it  not  true  that  as  against  the  testimony 
of  the  gentlemen  interested  in  the  oleomargarine  business  and  their 
attorneys  before  this  committee  every  dairy  commissioner  in  the 
United  States  who  has  expressed  himself  upon  this  subject  has  said 
that  there  is  need  of  national  legislation  to  wipe  out  what  is  one  of  the 
greatest  evils  in  food  products  in  this  country  of  ours?  Is  not  that 
testimony  before  this  committee?  Our  friends  on  the  other  side  have 
endeavored  to  array  the  stock  interests  of  the  country  against  us  upon 
the  ground  mainly  of  personal  interest  which  those  stockmen  may 
have  in  this  question.  For  just  a  moment  I  will  refer  to  that. 

During  the  last  year,  as  I  understand  it,  there  were  in  round  numbers 
5,000,000  beeves  killed  in  this  country.  The  total  amount  of  oleo  oil 
which  went  into  the  production  of  the  1899  oleomargarine  product  was 
24,000,000  pounds.  In  round  numbers  the  value  of  that  product  was 
$2,000,000.  That  is  about  40  cents  per  head,  as  against  the  statement 
of  the  representatives,  so  called,  of  the  live-stock  interests  before  this 
committee  that  the  loss,  if  this  bill  is  enacted  into  law,  would  be  from 
$3  to  $4  a  head.  Now,  that  is  on  the  supposition,  which  is  not  correct, 
that  if  this  bill  is  enacted  into  law  the  oleomargarine  industry  will  be 
crushed.  It  will  not  be  crushed.  You  will  do  what  is  done  in  Denmark, 
in  my  judgment.  In  years  to  come — I  don't  know  how  many  it  will 
take — you  will  sell  a  good  lair  portion  of  your  product  in  the  American 
market  as  it  is  sold  in  Denmark.  Three  and  a  half  pounds  to  each 
inhabitant  are  sold  there  of  uncolored  oleomargarine  to  1  pound  to 
each  inhabitant  in  the  United  States,  even  with  all  the  aids  that  color 
can  give  and  all  the  frauds  that  are  perpetrated  in  the  different  States 
in  this  Union.  Why,  gentlemen,  even  if  they  could  not  sell  their  oleo- 
margarine product  for  this  purpose,  they  can  sell  it  as  tallow,  and  they 
can  get  half  the  amount  which  they  get  now,  and  the  actual  loss  under 
those  figures  would  be  less  than  20  cents  a  head. 

Out  west  of  the  Missouri  Eiver  what  is  most  valuable  to  those  people 
who  have  been  raising  wheat  year  after  year  and  year  after  year  and 
exhausting  their  soils?  We  have  had  some  experience  in  Wisconsin. 
When  I  was  a  boy,  away  back  in  the  seventies,  the  farmers  in  Wisconsin 
were  in  financial  distress.  They  had  cropped  and  recropped  their  fields 
and  cropped  again,  as  they  have  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  until  the  produc- 
tion of  wheat  had  dropped  from  20  bushels  to  10  bushels  per  acre.  They 
turned  to  the  business  of  keeping  cows.  They  have  made  Wisconsin  a 
dairy  State.  They  have  made  a  product  which  has  not  taken  fertility 
out  of  the  soil — butter — which  is  sun  like,  and  does  not  come  from  the 
valuable  elements  of  plant  food  that  lie  in  the  soil ;  and  because  of  that 
business  they  have  brought  back  to  the  State  prosperity  and  more  wealth 
and  more  comfort  not  only  to  the  farming  population  of  Wisconsin  and 
Iowa,  and  Minnesota,  but  also  to  every  class  of  people  in  those  States; 
and  in  Nebraska  and  in  those  States  beyond  the  Missouri  that  process 
is  going  on.  The  coming  industry  in  those  States  is  going  to  be  the 


446  OLEOMARGARINE. 

industry  of  the  cow.  We  do  not  want  to  build  up  this  butter  business 
upon  the  ruins  of  any  other  legitimate  business,  and  least  of  all  upon 
the  ruins  of  that  business  which  is  comprised  in  the  making  of  meat 
foods  for  the  domestic  and  foreign  markets. 

A  gentleman  came  here  the  other  day  and  said  he  represented  the 
labor  organizations  of  a  portion  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  he 
said  before  this  committee,  claiming  to  represent  the  real  interests  of 
labor,  that  he  did  not  buy  oleomargarine  himself — that  he  did  not  have 
to;  and  he  and  his  friend  testified  before  this  committee  that  when 
those  men  went  into  the  stores  of  Pennsylvania  they  invariably  called 
for  butter  and  they  got  oleomargarine,  and  knew  they  were  going  to 
get  it.  Why?  Because  he  said  they  were  ashamed  to  buy  oleomarga- 
rine under  its  own  name.  It  is  an  astonishing  proposition.  What  will 
be  the  effect  to  the  laboring  men  of  this  country  of  the  passage  of  this 
law?  It  will  be  that  oleomargarine  will  be  sold  under  its  own  color 
and  at  an  oleomargarine  price.  You  go  into  the  markets  of  Wisconsin, 
you  go  into  the  markets  anywhere,  and  you  buy  uncolored  oleomarga- 
rine and  you  get  it  at  a  reasonable  oleomargarine  price.  There  is  no 
more  disgrace  in  buying  oleomargarine  under  its  own  form  and  color 
than  there  is  for  a  member  of  Congress  to  go  up  here  to  this  vaudeville 
show  and  buy  a  25- cent  seat  instead  of  a  50-cent  seat.  I  have  seen 
them  do  it.  There  is  no  more  disgrace  in  a  woman's  going  into  a  store 
and  buying  a  calico  dress  than  there  is  in  buying  a  silk  dress.  It  is 
simply  idle  nonsense.  Pass  this  bill  and  the  laboring  men  of  this  coun- 
try will  get  their  substitute  for  butter  at  exactly  what  it  is  worth. 
Permit  oleomargarine  to  be  sold  uncolored,  and  these  men  claim  they 
have  an  actual  right  to  it,  given  to  them  by  the  Almighty,  and  they 
will  be  compelled  in  the  majority  of  instances  to  pay  a  butter  price 
for  it. 

Gentlemen,  I  do  not  want  to  crowd  upon  the  time  of  the  gentlemen 
who  are  to  follow  me,  but  I  want  to  read  just  a  little,  simply  to  enter 
it  in  this  testimony,  with  reference  to  the  direct  testimony  which  we 
have  brought. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Do  you  not  think  it  would  save  time  and  do  just  as 
well  to  file  it  and  let  it  become  part  of  the  record  ? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Except  this,  Senator ;  part  of  these  letters  are  personal. 
I  am  going  to  read  extracts,  and  they  will  be  very  brief. 

I  received  a  short  time  ago  from  the  Vermont  Dairymen's  Association 
the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  we,  the  members  of  the  Vermont  Dairymen's  Association,  in  our 
thirty-first  annual  meeting  assembled,  do  heartily  approve  of  the  Grout  oleomarga- 
rine bill  now  pending  in  Congress. 

Resolved,  We  believe  it  for  the  best  interests  of  the  producer  of  pure  dairy  foods, 
as  well  as  the  consumer,  that  such  a  bill  be  enacted. 

Resolved,  That  the  members  of  Congress  from  Vermont  be  asked  to  use  every 
legitimate  effort  in  securing  the  passage  of  said  bill. 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  at  once  to  each  member  of  Con- 
gress from  Vermont. 

Here  is  a  letter  from  the  dairy  commissioner  of  Michigan: 

STATE  OF  MICHIGAN, 
DAIRY  AND  FOOD  DEPARTMENT, 

Detroit,  Mich.,  December  21,  1900. 
Hon.  H.  C.  ADAMS,  Madison,  Wis. 

DEAR  MR.  ADAMS:  *  *  *  If  I  can  arrange  some  matters  herein  Michigan,  I 
shall  try  and  leave  sometime  Wednesday,  and  shall  reach  Washington  early  OD 
the  morning  of  the  3d.  I  will  do  my  best  to  bring  this  about,  but,  as  I  say,  the 
chances  seem  against  it.  Had  I  known  a  little  while  ago  that  you  might  desire  my 
testimony  I  should  have  held  myself  in  readiness,  but  coming  as  unexpectedly  as 


OLEOMARGARINE.  447 

your  summons  does,  it  places  me  in  a  very  difficult  position.  I  earnestly  desire  to 
assist  in  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill,  and  believe  that  the  story  I  can  tell  of  the 
situation  in  Michigan  might  do  something  to  secure  the  end.  Further,  I  feel  that 
the  consuming  public,  as  well  as  the  dairymen  of  Michigan,  have  a  right  to  expect 
me  to  at  least  reveal  conditions  when  important  legislation  like  this  is  pending. 

The  principal  reason  why  I  can  not  leave  Michigan  is  the  fact  that  I  am  about  to 
turn  over  the  dairy  and  food  department  to  my  successor  just  in  the  midst  of  a  bit- 
ter milk  fight  here  in  Detroit. 

Very  sincerely,  yours,  ELLIOT  O.  GROSVENOR,  Commissioner. 

I  have  also  the  following  letter: 

STATE  OF  IOWA, 
OFFICE  OF  DAIRY  COMMISSIONER, 

Cresco,  loiva,  December  29,  1900. 
Hon.  H.  C.  ADAMS,  Madison,  Wis. 

DEAR  SIR:  *  *  *  Will  you  not  kindly  express  for  me  my  strong  indorsement 
of  the  bill  in  its  present  form.  The  undersigned  has  yet  to  find  a  single  man  who 
objects  to  the  bill  when  he  understands  its  provisions  and  its  purpose,  unless  his 
personal  interests  are  along  the  line  of  selling  oleomargarine  under  present  condi- 
tions. I  am  firmly  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  this  law,  and  know  only  too  well 
the  futility  of  our  present  State  anticolor  laws.  The  100,000  creamery  patrons  of 
Iowa  are  anxiously  awaiting  the  passage  of  this  bill,  and  it  has  the  indorsement  of 
almost  all  our  farmers,  whether  interested  in  dairying  or  not. 
Respectfully, 

B.  P.  NORTON,  Dairy  Commissioner. 

I  have  a  letter  here  from  J.  B.  Noble,  dairy  commissioner  of  the  State 
of  Connecticut: 

STATE  OF  CONNECTICUT,  DAIRY  COMMISSIONER'S  OFFICE, 

Hartford,  January  3,  1901. 
Hon.  H.  C.  ADAMS, 

'Dairy  Commissioner,  Madison,  Wis. 

DEAR  SIR  :  *  *  This  is  one  of  the  most  important  measures  connected  with 
the  dairy  interests  which  has  been  before  Congress  for  a  long  time.  The  dairymen 
all  over  the  country  are  recognizing  its  importance  and  are  extremely  anxious  for 
the  passage  of  this  bill. 

Important  matters  in  regard  to  our  own  business  in  Connecticut  will  keep  me 
here  for  the  present.  I  have  two  oleo  cases  which  must  be  attended  to  this  week, 
and  I  can  not  leave  them,  and  other  business  connected  with  the  office,  to  go  to 
Washington  now.  *  *  * 

Yours,  respectfully,  J.  B.  NOBLE. 

Here  is  a  telegram  from  the  Commission  Merchants'  League,  Cleve- 
land, Ohio: 

Convention  has  just  passed  resolution  indorsing  the  Grout  bill,  and  wired  Proctor 
at  Washington. 

CHARLES  T.  MATTHEWS. 

Now,  then,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we  sub- 
mit here  as  testimony  in  behalf  of  this  bill  the  experience  of  the  dairy 
commissioners,  who  are  brought  directly  into  contact  with  this  business 
and  have  the  facilities  which  few  men  can  have  of  knowing  the  char- 
acter of  that  traffic.  We  come  here  to  Congress  and  ask  for  its  pas- 
sage, because  we  believe  it  is  a  proper  exercise  of  Congressional  power 
to  place  a  tax  which  is  substantially  prohibitory,  in  our  judgment,  upon 
oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of  butter.  We  have  behind  us  not 
only  the  statements  of  the  commissioners,  but  we  have  also  behind  us 
the  expression  of  62,000,000  of  people  who  have  legislated  in  behalf  of 
absolute  prohibition  in  their  several  States. 

If  you  will  excuse  me  a  moment,  I  wish  to  made  reference  to  certain 
cases  which  I  have  not  taken  the  time  to  read : 

In  McAllister  v.  State  (7*J  Md.,  390),  the  court  of  appeals  of  Maryland 
sustained  the  validity  of  a  statute  of  that  State  declaring  ifc  unlawful 
to  ofl'er  for  sale  as  an  article  of  food  in  imitation  and  semblance  of  nat- 


448  OLEOMARGARINE. 

ural  butter.  The  object  of  the  statute  being  to  protect  purchasers 
against  fraud  and  deception,  the  power  of  the  legislature  the  court 
said,  following  the  previous  decision  in  Pierce  v.  State  (63  Md.,  596), 
was  too  plain  to  be  questioned. 

In  Waterbury  v.  Newton  (21  Vroom,  534),  the  New  Jersey  supreme 
court  sustained  the  validity  of  an  act  that  forbade  the  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine colored  with  annato.  In  response  to  the  suggestion  that  oleo- 
margarine colored  with  annato  was  a  wholesome  article  of  food,  the  sale 
of  which  could  not  be  prohibited,  the  court  said: 

If  the  sole  basis  for  this  statute  were  the  protection  of  the  public  health,  this 
objection  would  be  pertinent,  and  might  require  us  to  consider  the  delicate  questions 
whether  and  how  far  the  judiciary  can  pass  upon  the  adaptability  of  the  means  which 
the  legislature  has  proposed  for  the  accomplishment  of  its  legitimate  ends;  but,  as 
already  intimated,  this  provision  is  not  aimed  at  the  protection  of  the  public  health. 
Its  object  is  to  secure  to  the  dairymen  and  the  public  at  large  a  fuller  and  fairer 
enjoyment  of  their  property  by  excluding  from  the  market  a  commodity  prepared 
with  a  view  of  deceiving  those  purchasing  it.  It  is  not  pretended  that  annato  has 
any  other  function  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  than  to  make  it  a  counter- 
feit of  butter,  which  is  more  generally  esteemed  and  commands  a  higher  price.  That 
the  legislature  may  repress  such  counterfeits  does  not  admit,  I  think,  of  substantial 
question.  Laws  of  like  character  have  been  frequently  assailed  before  the  courts, 
but  always  without  success. 

It  was  further  held  by  the  court  that  the  statute  of  New  Jersey  was 
not  repugnant  to  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  empowering  Congress 
to  regulate  commerce  among  the  States,  but  that  the  package  there  in 
question,  and  which  had  been  brought  from  Indiana,  became,  upon  its 
delivery  in  Jersey  City,  subject  to  the  laws  of  New  Jersey  relating  gen- 
erally to  articles  of  that  nature.  (50  N.  J.  L.,  535,  537.) 

In  the  case  of  State  v.  Marshall  (64  N.  H.,  549,  551,  552),  arising  under 
a  statute  of  New  Hampshire  relating  to  the  sale  of  imitation  butter, 
the  court  said : 

Butter  is  a  necessary  article  of  foodjof  almost  universal  consumption ;  and  if  an 
article  compounded  from  cheaper  ingredients,  which  many  people  would  not  pur- 
chase or  use  if  they  knew  what  it  was,  can  be  made  so  closely  to  resemble  butter 
that  ordinary  persons  can  not  distinguish  it  from  genuine  butter,  the  liability  to  de- 
ception is  such  that  protection  of  the  public  requires  those  dealing  in  the  article  in 
some  way  to  designate  its  real  character.  *  *  The  prohibition  of  the  statute 
being  directed  against  imposition  in  selling  or  exposing  for  sale  artificial  compounds 
resembling  butter  in  appearance  and  flavor,  and  liable  to  be  mistaken  for  genuine 
butter,  it  is  no  defense  that  the  article  sold  or  exposed  for  sale  is  free  from  impurity 
and  unwholesome  ingredients,  and  healthful  and  nutritious  as  an  article  of  food. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Can  you  furnish  the  committee  a  copy  of  that  brief? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  can.  I  will  submit  the  entire  brief,  which  is  a  protest 
of  the  National  Dairy  Union  against  the  adulteration  of  food  products. 

I  would  like  also  to  submit  some  references  here  which  I  would  like 
to  discuss  with  reference  to  certain  points  concerning  the  legal  phase 
of  this  question,  but  which  I  will  not  take  the  time  to  discuss. 

The  references  above  referred  to  are  as  follows : 

CONSTITUTIONALITY   OF   A   LAW   PLACING   AN   INTERNAL-REVENUE   TAX    UPON 

OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  Supreme  Court  in  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  AVheat.,  428,  says: 

"  It  is  admitted  that  the  power  of  taxing  the  people  and  their  property  is  essential 
to  the  very  existence  of  the  Government,  and  may  be  legitimately  exercised  to  the 
utmost  extent  to  which  the  Government  may  choose  to  carry  it.  The  people  give  to 
their  Government  the  right  of  taxing  themselves  and  their  property;  and  as  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  Government  may  not  be  limited,  they  prescribe  no  limits  to  the  exer- 
cise of  this  right,  resting  confidently  on  the  interest  of  the  legislator  and  on  the 
influence  of  the  constituents  over  their  representatives  to  guard  them  against  abuse." 

Desty,  in  his  work  on  taxation,  says : 

"  One  purpose  of  taxation  sometimes  is  to  discourage  a  business,  and  perhaps  to 
put  it  out  of  existence,  and  it  is  taxed  without  any  idea  of  protection  attending  the 
burden." 


OLEOMARGARINE.  449 

In  1886  Congress  passed  a  law  imposing  a  tax  of  10  per  cent  on  all  currency 
issued  by  State  banks.  This  was  intended  clearly  not  as  a  measure  of  taxation,  but 
as  a  measure  of  prohibition.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  held  this  law 
to  be  constitutional,  und  said: 

"The  tax  can  not  be  held  invalid  for  being  so  excessive  as  to  indicate  a  purpose  to 
destroy  the  franchise  of  the  State  banks." 

Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  the  case  of  McCulloch  r.  Maryland,  also  said: 
"That  the  power  to  tax  involves  the  power  to  destroy 'is  a  proposition  not  to  be 
denied." 

Justice  Story,  in  his  work  on  the  Constitution,  book  1,  pages  677-678,  says: 
"Nothing  is  more  clear  from  the  history  of  nations  than  the  fact  that  the  taxing 
power  is  often,  very  often,  applied  for  other  purposes  than  revenue.     It  is  often 
applied  as  a  virtual  prohibition;  sometimes  to  banish  a  noxious  article  of  consump- 
tion; sometimes  as  a  suppression  of  particular  employments." 
Alexander  Hamilton  says : 

"Under  the  taxing  power  there  is  no  limit  as  to  the  amount  which  maybe  charged. 
It  often  happens  in  certain  avocations  that  the  power  to  tax  is  used  in  aid  of  the 
police  power,  either  by  devoting  the  fund  to  the  payment  of  the  police  power  or  by 
making  the  tax  so  high  as  to  be  in  its  nature  prohibitory." 
Justice  Woodbury,  in  the  case  of  Pierce  et  al.  v.  N.  H.,  5  Wheat.,  608,  said: 
"But  I  go  further  on  this  point  than  some  of  the  court,  and  wish  to  meet  the  case 
in  front  and  in  its  worst  bearings.    If,  as  in  the  view  of  some,  these  license  laws  are 
in  the  nature  of  partial  or  entire  prohibitions  to  sell  certain  articles,  as  being  dan- 
gerous to  public  health  and  morals,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  their  conflict  with 
the  Constitution  would  by  any  means  be  clear.     Taking  for  granted  that  the  real 
design  in  passing  them  is  the  avowed  one  (prohibition),  they  would  appear  entirely 
defensible  as  a  matter  of  right,  though  prohibiting  sales." 
In  Walker's  Science  of  Wealth  this  rule  of  taxation  is  also  general : 
"The  heaviest  taxes  should  be  imposed  upon  those  commodities  the  consumption 
of  which  is  especially  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  people." 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  would  like  to  add  one  case  to  the  references  given  by 
Commissioner  Adams.  That  is  the  case  of  Fox,  89  Maryland,  page 
389.  That  is  where  Judge  Fowler  says  it  is  impossible  to  restrict  the 
sale  of  original  packages  when  the  article  is  not  deleterious  to  health, 
if  it  is  not  proven  by  the  State  that  it  is  deleterious  to  health.  That 
is  a  very  important  case,  showing  the  absolute  necessity  for  this 
legislation,  so  far  as  the  first  section  is  concerned. 

STATEMENT  OF   S.  C.  BASSETT,  PRESIDENT   OF   THE   NEBRASKA 
STATE  BOARD  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Give  your  name,  place  of  residence,  and  occupation. 

Mr.  BASSETT.  S.  0.  Bassett,  Gibbon,  Nebr.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gen- 
tlemen of  the  committee:  As  president  of  the  Nebraska  State  Board 
of  Agriculture,  I  appear  before  you  to-day  in  behalf  of  the  farmers  and 
dairymen  of  Nebraska  who  desire  that  the  so  called  "Grout"  bill  shall 
become  a  law. 

If  you  will  pardon  a  personal  allusion,  I  might  say  that  thirty  years 
ago  I  made  settlement  on  a  homestead  in  that  State,  upon  which  I  have 
since  resided;  that  much  of  that  time  I  have  been  engaged  in  the  dairy 
and  live  stock  business,  and  that  in  this  matter  I  represent  the  views 
and  wishes  of  the  thousands  of  farmers  of  my  own  State. 

It  was  stated  by  a  gentleman  who  appeared  before  you  that  the 
farmers  were  not  asking  the  passage  of  this  law;  in  fact,  that  the 
farmers  were  not  particularly  interested  in  the  matter. 

In  view  of  the  great  interest  which  this  measure  has  created  in 
Congress;  in  view  of  its  widespread  discussion  in  the  public  press; 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  every  agricultural  newspaper  in  our  land 
advocates  its  passage;  that  every  State  dairy  and  food  commissioner 
who  has  appeared  before  you  is  in  favor  of  the  bill;  that  State  boards  of 
agriculture,  State  dairymen's  associations,  national  and  State  granges 
have  all  adopted  resolutions  in  favor  of  this  measure  and  urging  that 

S.  Rep.  2043 29 


450  OLEOMAEGAEINE. 

it  become  a  law ;  in  view  of  all  these  facts,  it  seems  to  me  that  one 
must  be  willfully  ignorant  who  says  or  intimates  that  farmers  or  dairy- 
men are  not  asking  or  particularly  desiring  that  this  measure  become 
a  law. 

In  my  own  State  very  few  measures  before  Congress  have  ever 
created  the  interest  among  our  farmers  that  this  one  does. 

We  have  been  struggling  for  years  to  suppress  the  fraudulent  sale 
of  oleomargarine  as  and  for  butter.  By  a  large  majority  in  the  House 
and  with  but  two  dissenting  votes  in  the  Senate  we  passed  in  1895  a 
law  prohibiting  the  sale  of  imitation  butter  colored  yellow. 

This  law  is  openly  violated.  Large  quantities  of  oleomargarine  of  a 
yellow  color  are  sold,  and  I  fully  believe  90  per  cent  of  the  same  is  sold 
to  the  consumer  as  and  for  butter. 

In  1898  we  created  the  office  of  food  commissioner,  whose  duty  it  was 
to  enforce  the  dairy  laws  of  the  State.  In  attempting  to  enforce  said 
laws  it  became  necessary  for  the  deputy  food  commissioner  to  employ  a 
chemist  and  have  analyzed  samples  of  oleomargarine  sold  for  butter. 
When  about  ready  for  use  of  the  testimony  of  the  chemist  in  cases  where 
parties  were  to  be  tried  for  violation  of  the  dairy  laws,  the  chemist 
refused  to  proceed  with  the  analysis  or  to  remain  longer  in  the  employ 
of  the  food  commissioner,  giving  as  a  reason  that  he  had  been  employed 
by  other  parties,  and  later  it  appeared  that  the  other  parties  were  those 
engaged  in  the  sale  of  oleomargarine. 

When  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  creating  the  office  of  food  com- 
missioner was  raised  in  our  courts,  the  oleomargarine  interests  asked 
to  be  allowed  to  appear  by  their  attorneys  as  against  the  law.  I  men- 
tion these  matters  to  show  that  a  very  large  per  cent  of  the  people  of 
my  State  are  opposed  to  the  fraudulent  sale  of  oleomargarine;  that  by 
legal  enactments  they  have  endeavored  to  suppress  this  fraud,  using 
every  reasonable  effort  in  their  power  to  that  end;  that  the  fraud  con- 
tinues to  be  perpetrated  and  the  dealers  in  oleomargarine  continue  to 
violate  the  law. 

It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten,  but  should  be  kept  constantly  in  mind, 
that  the  exceedingly  large  profits  which  dealers  in  oleomargarine 
receive  is  the  reason  why  its  sale  is  so  strenuously  pushed.  Those  who 
divide  the  profits  of  this  most  profitable  business  are  comparatively  few 
in  number,  and  the  retail  dealers,  who  are  the  principal  violators  of  the 
law,  receive  the  lion's  share  of  the  profit,  considering  the  amount 
handled.  With  us  a  retail  dealer  makes  not  to  exceed  an  average  of 
2  cents  per  pound  on  butter  sold,  while  the  retail  dealer  in  oleomar- 
garine makes  a  profit  of  8  to  10  cents  per  pound. 

By  State  legislation  we  seem  well-nigh  powerless  to  control  this 
fraud,  and  this  is  why  we  come  to  the  National  Congress,  believing 
that  this  is  the  only  power  which  can  compel  the  sale  of  this  product 
on  its  own  merits  and  for  what  it  is. 

There  is  one  phase  of  this  question  which  has  been  presented  to  your 
committee  which  is  of  vital  importance  to  the  people  of  my  State.  We 
not  only  produce  dairy  products  of  considerable  value,  but  we  also 
raise  and  fatten  for  the  market  large  numbers  of  cattle,  hogs,  and  sheep. 
The  live  stock  industry  is,  with  us,  the  leading  industry.  Hence,  any 
legislation  calculated  to  injuriously  affect  this  industry  or  materially 
lessen  in  the  markets  the  value  of  our  live  stock  is  of  prime  importance. 

Both  before  this  committee  and  elsewhere  the  oleomargarine  interests 
have  endeavored  to  make  it  appear  that  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
oleomargarine  increases  to  a  marked  extent  the  value  of  each  animal 
slaughtered  in  our  packing  centers,  and  that  the  passage  of  this  bill 


OLEOMARGARINE.  451 

will  cause  a  direct  loss  to  the  fanner  or  raiser  of  live  stock  on  each  ani- 
mal marketed.  There  has  been  created  among  stockmen  a  manufactured 
sentiment  that  the  passage  of  this  measure  would  injure  their  business. 
At  a  meeting  of  live-stock  owners  in  my  own  State  within  a  year  a  reso- 
lution was  presented  protesting  against  the  passage  of  this  bill  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  greatly  lessen  the  value  of  live  stock  marketed. 
It  was  explained  that  this  statement  was  not  true,  and  so  proven.  The 
resolution  was  finally  adopted,  one  prominent  stockman  stating  in  open 
meeting  that  while  he  knew  nothing  as  to  the  facts  in  the  case  he  should 
vote  for  the  resolution  on  general  principles. 

The  National  Live  Stock  Association  has  adopted  resolutions  oppos- 
ing the  passage  of  this  measure,  and  a  representative  of  the  association 
has  appeared  before  this  committee  and  attempted  to  show  by  statistics 
and  otherwise  that  this  proposed  law  would  very  materially  lessen  the 
value  of  all  live  stock  marketed. 

On  December  17  last,  by  means  of  the  Associated  Press  dispatches, 
tjiere  was  broadcasted  over  the  country  the  following  statement,  pur- 
porting to  come  from  Mr.  John  W.  Springer,  president  of  the  National 
Live  Stock  Association.  It  is  dated  at  Denver,  Colo.,  and  is  as  follows: 

"  The  stockmen  of  the  West  are  all  interested  in  this  bill,"  said  Mr.  Springer  to-day, 
"and  so  are  all  manufacturers.  If  such  a  measure  as  this  can  become  law  no  indus- 
try in  the  country  is  safe.  If  it  should  become  a  law  and  take  effect  it  means  sim- 
ply that  the  stockmen  of  the  West  will  lose  from  $3  to  $4  on  every  steer  they  market. 
We  also  claim  that  the  only  people  directly  interested  in  the  passage  of  this  law  is 
the  butter  trust." 

A  neighbor  of  mine  who  annually  feeds  large  numbers  of  cattle  for 
market,  after  reading  this  statement,  said  to  me :  "  If  that  statement  be 
true  I  certainly  am  opposed  to  your  Grout  bill." 

Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  as  I  understand  this  matter,  this  state- 
ment is  not  true,  and  neither  by  statistics  nor  otherwise  can  it  be  shown 
to  be  true.  Statistics  published  by  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1899,  show  that  at  41 
packing  centers  the  number  of  cattle  inspected  before  slaughter  was 
4,654,842.  Outside  of  those  inspected  by  the  Department  it  is  esti- 
mated that  enough  more  were  slaughtered  to  make  the  aggregate 
number  slaughtered  for  the  year,  5,000,000  head. 

The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  to 
Congress  in  May  last  shows  that  in  all  the  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleo- 
margarine manufactured  in  this  country  last  year  there  were  but 
24,491,769  pounds  of  oleo  oil  used.  This  at  9  cents  per  pound  has  a 
value  of  $2,204,259,  which  sum  divided  among  the  5,000,000  head  of 
cattle  who  produced  this  oleo  oil  makes  an  average  of  44  cents  per  head. 

In  some  cases  this  product  is  priced  at  10  cents  per  pound,  but  I  think 
that  is  unjust  from  a  producer's  standpoint,  for  the  reason  that  at  10 
cents  a  pound  oleo  oil  is  a  manufactured  product  into  which  labor,  etc., 
goes,  and  on  which  profit  is  realized,  but  the  man  who  markets  the 
cattle  does  not  receive  10  cents  a  pound  for  it,  and  I  have  used  the 
figure  9  cents,  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  a  proper  estimate.  No  one 
believes  or  for  a  moment  seriously  contends  that  if  this  oleo  product 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  could  not  be  so  used  it 
would  be  a  total  loss,  and  lessen  by  the  sum  of  44  cents  the  average 
amount  received  by  the  owners  of  cattle  for  each  animal  sold  for  slaugh- 
ter. But  suppose  it  needs  be  sold  at  the  price  of  other  fats— 5  cents 
per  pound — it  would  mean  a  mere  nominal  loss  of  20  cents  on  each 
animal  sold  for  slaughter,  which  sum  every  owner  of  live  stock  well 
knows  is  hardly  given  a  thought  when  his  stock  is  being  disposed  of 
for  slaughter  at  packing  centers. 


452 


OLEOM  AEG  AKIN  E. 


Twenty  cents  is  but  5  per  cent — the  one-twentieth  part — of  the  $4 
claimed  by  the  president  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Association. 
Twenty  cents  represents  the  value  of  about  an  average  of  five  pounds 
in  the  live  weight  of  an  animal  sold  for  slaughter,  while  the  $4  claimed 
would  represent  about  one  hundred  pounds  of  live  weight. 

As  showing  that  the  sentiments  expressed  by  the  National  Live 
Stock  Association  do  not  represent  the  sentiments  of  the  majority  of 
the  people  in  the  States  in  which  the  cattle  are  owned,  I  desire  to  call 
attention  to  the  number  of  head  of  cattle  in  each  State  as  shown  on 
page  95  of  the  published  report  of  the  hearing  of  this  matter  before 
the  House  committee. 

Mr.  John  0.  McCoy,  in  his  argument  before  the  committee,  gives  the 
number  of  head  of  cattle  in  each  State,  and  for  convenience  I  have 
arranged  them  in  two  classes,  as  follows : 

Number  of  cattle  in  States  having  laws  prohibiting  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine colored  yellow : 


Alabama 511,080 

California 913,753 

Colorado 1,115,421 

Connecticut 210,  717 

Delaware 58,035 

Georgia 666, 147 

Illinois 2,324,254 

Iowa 3,442,012 

Kentucky 539,449 

Maine 316,537 

Maryland 257,435 

Massachusetts 254,  967 

Minnesota 1, 237,  003 

Missouri 2,047,346 

Nebraska 2,206,792 

New  Hampshire 214,  678 

New  Jersey 263,157 


New  York 2,059,715 

North  Dakota 431, 371 

Ohio „ 1,455,558 

Oregon 637,  433 

Pennsylvania 1, 494, 126 

South  Carolina 260,223 

South  Dakota 879,200 

Tennessee 526, 235 

Utah „     336,076 

Vermont 401,336 

Virginia 567, 488 

Washington 390,444 

West  Virginia 408,198 

Wisconsin 1, 598,  529 

Michigan 801,818 

Total 28,825,933 


Number  of  cattle  in  States  and  Territories  not  having  laws  prohibiting  the  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine colored  yellow. 


Arkansas 419,422 

Arizona 381,861 

Florida 412,820 

Idaho 397,928 

Indiana 1,234,930 

Kansas 2,867,224 

Louisiana 294,  961 

Mississippi 517,809 

Montana 959,808 


Nevada 238,081 

New  Mexico 679,359 

North  Carolina 518, 141 

Oklahoma 323,971 

Rhode  Island 35, 405 

Texas 5,  046,  335 

Wyoming 747,826 


Total 15,065,881 


It  seems  to  me  it  is  fair  to  presume  that,  in  the  32  States  in  which 
laws  have  been  enacted  prohibiting  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored 
yellow,  the  sentiment  of  a  considerable  majority  of  the  people  of  each 
of  those  States  is  in  opposition  to  the  fraudulent  sale  of  oleomargarine 
as  and  for  butter,  and  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill.  Of 
the  43,891,814  head  of  cattle  owned  in  the  United  States,  28,825,933,  or 
more  than  65  per  cent,  are  owned  in  States  where  laws  have  been  en- 
acted to  prevent  the  fraudulent  sale  of  oleomargarine. 

There  seems  to  be  an  impression  here  that  you  can  separate  the  live- 
stock interest  into  two  classes,  as  it  were,  men  who  raise  live  stock  for 
selling  purposes  and  men  who  are  engaged  in  the  dairying  business — 
that  is,  that  the  men  engaged  in  the  dairy  business  have  no  interest  in 
live-stock  matters.  This  is  not  for  a  moment  true.  A  man  engaged  in 
dairying  raises  the  calves  the  same  as  the  man  engaged  only  in  live- 
stock raising.  Those  calves  go  to  market  for  slaughter,  and  further- 


OLEOMARGARINE.  453 

more,  in  the  State  in  which  I  live,  a  considerable  portion  of  that  State 
is  what  we  call  the  range  section,  altogether  given  up  to  the  raising  ot 
live  stock.  In  western  Nebraska  and  in  western  Kansas  there  is  not 
much  farming  done.  There  is  not  much  raised  in  the  way  of  crops. 
The  business  of  the  people  is  the  keeping  of  live  stock. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Will  you  permit  me  to  ask  you  a  question,  Mr. 
Bassett? 

Mr.  BASSETT.  Certainly. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  dairy  interests  of  our  State  raise  an  entirely 
different  class  of  cattle  from  the  meat- producing  interests,  do  they  not? 

Mr.  BASSETT.  We  used  to,  but  we  have  realized  that  the  calves,  the 
steer  calf  especially,  has  a  value  to  the  dairyman,  and  instead  of  raising 
and  keeping  Jersey  cows  and  Holsteins  for  dairy  purposes,  we  are  going 
back  to  wbat  is  called  the  common-purpose  cow,  that  produces  a 
reasonable  profit  in  a  dairy  way  and  at  the  same  time  we  raise  steers 
that  can  be  fattened  for  market. 

What  I  was  going  to  say  was  that  upon  the  range  where  their  entire 
business  was  the  raising  and  marketing  of  live  stock  is  now  one  of  the 
most  promising  industries  of  our  State,  in  a  dairy  way.  Out  on  the 
range,  where  men  raise  no  crops  whatever,  we  have  some  skimming 
stations.  A  skimming  station  is  where  milk  is  brought  and  the  cream 
separated  from  it  and  the  cream  shipped  to  the  manufactory  to  be  man- 
ufactured into  butter.  We  have  three  skimming  stations  where  I  am 
under  the  impression  that  more  pounds  of  milk  are  brought  in  a  year  to 
be  skimmed  than  at  any  other  like  stations  in  the  United  States  and 
possibly  in  the  world.  The  live-stock  owners  on  the  ranges  are  becom- 
ing dairymen,  and  that  is  why  I  protest  that  the  National  Live  Stock 
Association  does  not  represent  the  people  of  my  State  in  this  matter. 
The  people  upon  the  range  section  of  the  State  are  interested  in  the 
passage  of  this  measure. 

I  do  not  wish  to  discredit  the  National  Live  Stock  Association  before 
this  committee,  but  in  its  appearance  here  it  does  not  represent  either  the 
wishes  or  sentiments  of  the  very  large  majority  of  the  farmers  and  stock 
raisers  of  my  State.  It  undoubtedly  does  represent  the  sentiment  of  the 
packers,  commission  men,  owners  of  live  stock  on  the  ranges,  and  like 
interests,  but  it  does  not  represent  the  sentiment  of  our  farmers  and 
dairymen  who  are  by  far  the  largest  raisers  and  owners  of  live  stock. 

When  I  say  "  owners  of  live  stock  on  ranges,"  I  have  reference  to 
that  class  of  men  who  own  large  interests  in  live  stock. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Large  herds'? 

Mr.  BASSETT.  Large  herds,  yes;  and  those  men  do  not  do  much  in  a 
dairy  way.  I  have  reference  to  men  who  own  comparatively  small 
herds  of  cattle. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  number  of  cattle  in  the 
State  of  Nebraska  at  this  time? 

Mr.  BASSETT.  Something  over  2,000,000  head,  I  think. 

We  make  no  complaint  concerning  oleo  sold  as  such,  but  we  do  make 
complaint  against  oleo  sold  as  and  for  butter  and  at  butter  prices. 
The  whole  and  entire  reason  that  it  can  be  thus  sold  is  that  it  is 
colored  in  semblance  of  butter. 

If  a  laboring  man  wants  to  eat  butter  he  can  buy  it  at  the  market 
price.  If  through  necessity  or  choice  he  wants  to  eat  "pork  fat"  or 
"beef  fat"  he  can  buy  it  for  5  cents  to  7  cents  a  pound. 

Again,  we  say.  it  is  the  color  that  enables  all  who  desire  to  defraud 
the  people  to  do  so.  A  color  law  is  the  only  law  devised  that  pro- 
tects the  consumer  at  the  table.  This  law  protects  the  consumer  and 
the  producer. 


454  OLEOMABGARINE. 

When  Germany  and  other  nations  placed  or  threatened  to  place 
restrictions  on  the  importations  of  the  packing  houses,  the  whole 
power  of  the  General  Government  was  called  upon  to  keep  the  mar- 
kets open.  They  fought  against  these  markets  being  taken  from  them. 

On  the  other  hand,  why  should  they,  if  they  believe  in  fair  dealing, 
want  to  take  the  home  market  away  from  the  rank  and  file  of  the  peo- 
ple? Why  should  they  seek  to  diminish  the  outlet  of  the  American 
farmer  for  his  products? 

And  more  especially  is  this  true  when  this  outlet  and  this  market 
is  taken  from  him  by  fraud  which  the  yellow  artificial  color  given  to 
oleo  enables  the  retailer  to  work  on  the  consumer. 

There  are  only  two  questions  involved: 

1.  This  "Grout7'  bill  will  suppress  fraud. 

2.  It  will  keep  open  our  domestic  outlets  and  markets  for  the  genuine 
product  of  the  cow. 

Will  the  Government,  through  its  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives, stand  with  the  farmer  or  against  him?  Will  they  stand  for  com- 
mon honesty  or  despicable  fraud  ? 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  OF  JAMES  HEWES. 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  would  like  consideration  for  a  moment,  if  the  com- 
mittee please,  as  a  veteran.  I  do  not  believe  that  this  idea  has  been 
advanced  here  at  all.  I  am  one  of  those  who  came  here  in  1880  to  have 
the  oleomargarine  law,  as  it  is  called,  passed.  Of  course  it  was  novel 
legislation  in  Congress  at  that  time,  and  we  sought  to  have  the  policing 
feature  as  prominent  as  possible  in  that  law.  We  are  now  only  bring- 
ing that  law  to  you  here  for  revision,  finding  that  the  nineteen  sections 
that  look  to  policing  are  almost  disregarded.  There  are  only  two  rev- 
enue sections  to  the  law  of  1886.  The  other  nineteen  look  to  the 
policing  of  the  country,  and  we  ask  you  now  to  revise  that  because  we 
find  that  State  laws  are  powerless.  We  can  not  prosecute  people  for 
selling  oleomargarine  in  the  original  package,  because,  as  Brother 
Adams  here  has  told  you,  we  are  met  by  the  varying  opinions  of  the 
different  judges,  and  they  are  as  various  as  the  leaves  from  Valloin- 
brosa's  shades.  Judge  Adams  says  one  thing,  Judge  Lochran  says 
another,  and  Judge  Fowler  says  another. 

I  have  had  the  honor  of  prosecuting  all  offenders  under  the  oleo- 
margarine law  since  1878.  It  has  been  a  long  fight.  First  it  was  a 
regulating  law — a  law  of  inspection.  Then  it  became  the  prohibitory 
law.  Now  it  is  the  anticolor  law.  We  come  to  Congress  and  we  say 
to  you,  "This  is  our  law;  this  is  the  law  of  the  dairy.  We  brought 
this  to  you.  If  there  is  any  revenue  feature  to  it,  we  brought  it  to  the 
Government,"  and  we  promised  them  a  million  and  a  half  revenue. 
We  have  more  than  kept  our  promise.  We  have  given  them  more  than 
a  million  and  a  half  revenue  from  the  time  the  law  was  passed  in  1886 
to  the  present  time,  and  now  we  say  we  find  that  will  not  do.  That 
does  not  protect  the  consumer  at  all  from  the  practice  of  deception  that 
the  color  produces,  and  we  ask  you  to  eliminate  color.  We  show  you 
by  samples  produced  here  that  it  is  possible  to  make  oleomargarine 
white  and  still  sell  it.  We  do  not  crush  out  the  industry.  Further- 
more, we  are  almost  ready  to  predict  now  that  uncolored  oleomargarine 
will  produce  a  revenue  to  the  United  States  Government  of  half  a  mil- 
lion dollars.  But  suppose  it  does  not.  Does  the  dairy  interest  of  the 
country  stand  in  any  different  position  from  what  it  did  before  the 
introduction  of  the  law  of  1886  ?  Not  at  all.  Was  there  any  revenue 


OLEOMARGARINE.  455 

from  this  thing  at  all  prior  to  1886?  Not  a  dollar.  There  is  not  a 
single  gentleman  who  represents  the  other  side  but  who  is  confident, 
perhaps,  that  with  uncolored  oleomargarine  properly  put  before  the 
public  they  can  get  a  revenue  of  half  a  million  dollars  at  least. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  What  do  we  get  under  the  color  law  at  10  cents? 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  do  not  believe  there  will  be  very  much  uncolored  oleo- 
margarine sold,  and  therefore  the  public  will  be  protected  from  this 
fraud  that  is  perpetrated  upon  them,  illustrated  to-day  by  what  occurred 
down  here  at  this  restaurant. 

The  two  cases  that  have  been  decided  in  Pennsylvania  (in  133  Penn- 
sylvania State  Keports) — and  they  are  the  leading  cases  now  on  that 
subject — go  to  show  that  if  a  man  puts  up  a  meal  and  serves  oleomar- 
garine, he  sells  oleomargarine.  That  is  a  retail  sale  of  oleomargarine, 
because  the  cost  of  the  olernargarine  is  included  in  his  bill  of  fare. 

Senator  MONEY.  Providing  he  has  got  butter  on  the  bill  of  fare. 

Mr.  HEWES.  He  has  got  no  butter  on  the  bill  of  fare,  but  the  pre- 
sumption is  you  are  going  to  get  butter. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Suppose  you  go  into  a  restaurant  and  ask  for  a 
meal  and  do  not  get  any  butter  at  all. 

Mr.  HEWES.  You  call  for  butter,  or  refuse  to  eat. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Not  in  our  part  of  the  country.  We  often  call 
for  it  and  don't  get  it.  You  go  into  a  mining  camp,  and  I  will  defy  you 
to  get  butter. 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  never  heard  of  that  East. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  You  could  not  carry  it  in  there.  There  is  no 
possibility  of  it  getting  in  there.  It  would  be  strong  and  rancid  before 
you  could  get  it  there. 

Mr.  HEWES.  Where  is  that? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  That  is  in  the  mining  camps. 

Mr.  HEWES.   We  are  talking  about  east  of  the  Mississippi  Eiver. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  do  not  consider  it  fraud,  as  a  rule,  to  set  up 
oleomargarine  in  a  hotel,  unless  the  bill  of  fare  contains  butter  and  it 
is  palmed  off'  on  you  as  butter. 

Mr.  HEWES.  Take  it  from  the  standpoint  of  a  raining  camp  or  any 
other  place,  as  rude  and  primitive  as  it  may  be.  If  you  go  into  a  res- 
taurant and  they  put  up  anything  at  all,  the  presumption  is  it  is  butter. 
You  do  not  presume  that  a  man  is  going  to  put  oleomargarine  on  the 
table  for  you;  and  if  it  was  white,  you  would  detect  it  immediately. 

There  has  been  a  great  deal  of  talk  here  about  the  different  grades  of 
butter.  My  friend  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  did  not  tell  you  about 
the  laws  of  foreign  countries  as  fully  as  he  could  have  told  you,  because 
he  knew  well  enough  that  was  not  evidence.  The  law  of  Belgium  is  just 
the  same  as  the  law  of  Holland.  The  law  of  France  is  just  as  restricted 
as  the  law  of  Holland. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  How  do  they  prevent  people  from  getting  the 
counterfeit  goods? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Senator,  they  make  oleomargarine  to  be  sold  in  a  place 
that  is  different  from  where  butter  can  be  sold.  You  can  not  go  into 
the  oleomargarine  division  in  Paris  and  ask  for  butter,  and  you  can  not 
go  into  the  butter  division  and  ask  for  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  How  does  that  protect  the  table? 

Mr.  HEWES.  That  protects  the  people  who  buy  it.  We  have  our  own 
sins  to  answer  for,  however.  We  can  not  regulate  the  law  of  Paris. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  But  we  are  struggling  for  some  method  by  which 
to  regulate  our  own  affairs. 

Mr.  HEWES.  Yes  ;  you  want  to  get  the  best. 


456  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  would  like  to  know  how  a  hotel  in  Paris  is 
prevented  from  selling  me  oleomargarine  if  I  sit  down  at  its  table  ? 

Mr.  HEWES.  My  impression  is  that  in  Paris  you  are  subject  to  the 
depredations  of  plunderers  the  same  as  you  are  in  Washington,  because 
of  the  color  being  in  oleomargarine,  and  we  ask  you  to  eliminate  it. 
Suppose  you  went  to  the  best  hotel  in  Paris,  or  suppose  you  went  to 
the  Hotel  Metropole  or  any  other  place  in  London  and  they  brought 
you  oleomargarine 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  understood  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  to  say 
that  the  United  States  is  the  only  country  in  the  world  which  allows 
its  people  to  be  plundered  in  this  way. 

Mr.  HEWES.  He  made  a  mistake  about  that,  I  think.  I  believe  he 
admitted  he  made  a  mistake  and  tried  to  correct  it.  He  said  that  oleo- 
margarine that  was  exported  from  this  country  was  exported  mostly  as 
oleo  oil,  and  when  they  got  it  to  the  other  side,  they  could  do  as  they 
pleased  with  it;  but  the  laws  on  the  other  side  are  so  well  enforced  that 
even  if  a  man  perpetrates  a  fraud,  he  does  not  violate  the  law  openly 
as  he  does  here. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Will  you  allow  me  to  interrupt  you  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  This  oleomargarine  that  I  find  in  the  market 
here  sells  for  18  cents. 

Mr.  HEWES.  What  market? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Here  in  the  Center  Market  in  Washington  it  sells 
for  18  cents  a  pound.  There  is  now  a  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound,  and  if  10 
cents  a  pound  is  added  to  the  tax  the  dealer  would  receive  26  cents. 
There  is  no  butter  to  be  had  in  that  market  worth  taking  out  for  less 
than  30  cents  a  pound.  How  are  you  going  to  prevent  the  sale  of  it? 
Will  not  the  hotels  still  use  it  in  preference  to  butter  at  26  cents  when 
they  have  got  to  pay  30  cents  for  poor  butter  ? 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  suppose  they  will. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Then,  where  are  you  benefited? 

Mr.  HEWES.  If  the  hotel  uses  that  oleomargarine  it  will  not  put  it 
before  you  for  butter. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Why  should  it  not  ? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Because  the  hotel  people  will  simply  say  to  you,  prob- 
ably, "Do  you  want  oleomargarine  or  do  you  want  butter?" 

Mr.  MEDAIRY.  I  would  like  to  say  this,  Senator:  You  are  adding  8 
cents  additional  to  the  profits  of  the  retailer.  That  is  where  you  are  in 
error.  The  additional  tax  is  put  on  the  manufacturer's  price.  The 
retailer  now  gets  18  cents  a  pound  for  the  product,  but  if  you  put  the 
8  cents  additional  tax  upon  the  cost  of  manufacture,  it  does  not  inure 
as  much  profit  proportionately  to  the  retailer,  and  consequently  the 
consumer  gets  the  benefit  of  it. 

Mr.  HEWES.  To  resume  where  I  left  off.  In  the  prosecutions  in  the 
State  of  Maryland  ever  since  1878  it  has  been  my  privilege — 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  do  not  want  to  interrupt  you  unnecessarily,  and  if 
it  is  disagreeable  to  you  I  will  not  do  so. 

Mr.  HEWES.  It  is  not  disagreeable  at  all,  Senator. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  said  that  in  Paris  and  other  Eastern  cities  oleo- 
margarine was  set  up  in  one  restaurant,  for  instance,  and  no  butter 
could  be  sold  there. 

Mr.  HEWES.  Only  in  France,  Senator. 

Senator  ALLEN.  And  conversely  where  butter  was  sold  oleomarga- 
rine could  not  be  sold? 

Mr.  HEWES.  That  is  right. 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  457 

Senator  ALLEN.  But  suppose  in  searching  for  butter  I  walk  into  one 
of  these  oleomargarine  stores,  not  knowing  but  what  oleomargarine  is 
sold  there,  and  I  see  an  article  like  this,  and  I  say  "  I  want  10  pounds  of 
this  butter."  They  will  sell  it  to  me,  will  they  not? 

Mr.  HEWES.  If  you  call  it  butter? 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  do  not  know.  I  am  in  search  of  butter;  I  walk 
in  and  see  this  article. 

Mr.  HEWES.  You  see  that  article,  but  you  walk  into  the  oleomarga- 
rine side,  you  mean  ? 

Senator  ALLEN.  But  I  do  not  know  the  oleomargarine  side. 

Mr.  HEWES.  But  they  have  got  big  placards  there  in  4-inch  letters. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  They  have  that  here  at  this  market  now. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Suppose  I  buy  a  cigar  and  give  the  gentleman  a  $5 
bill.  He  gives  me  back  the  change.  I  do  not  stop  to  count  it.  I  do 
not  know  whether  he  has  given  me  the  right  change  or  not.  So  I  walk 
into  one  of  these  stores  and  I  want  some  butter.  I  do  not  look  at  pla- 
cards or  signs.  1  suppose  he  is  a  reputable  dealer,  and  I  call  for  butter. 
He  gives  me  oleomargarine,  and  there  is  an  open  opportunity  to  perpe- 
trate fraud,  is  there  not1? 

Mr.  HEWES.  No,  sir;  not  over  there,  because  those  laws  are  too 
strictly  enforced.  I  will  tell  you  what  the  restriction  is.  I  say  this  to 
the  sorrow  of  us  Americans.  I  am  so  American  in  my  composition  that 
I  do  not  like  anybody  who  is  not  American;  but  when  it  comes  to  the 
enforcement  of  laws,  they  beat  us  on  the  other  side.  I  am  sorry  to 
admit  it.  When  the  law  over  there  requires  them  to  put  a  label  on  the 
outside  of  this  package,  it  goes  there,  Senator;  and  when  you  buy  that 
10  pounds,  and  you  may  call  it  anything  you  please,  you  get  a  label  on 
the  outside  "  Oleomargarine,"  or,  as  they  call  it,  "  Margarine." 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Will  you  permit  me  to  interrupt  you  a  moment,  Mr. 
Hewes? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  want  to  get  into  the  record  this  case  on  the  question 
of  whether  or  not  the  placing  of  oleomargarine  upon  a  table  is  construed 
as  a  sale  or  not  by  the  courts.  The  case  to  which  I  refer  here  is  the 
case  of  Commonwealth  v.  Worcester,  26  Mass.,  256.  That  is  a  case  where 
a  man  bought  a  breakfast  for  35  cents  and  found  the  milk  was  adul- 
terated. An  action  was  brought  against  the  hotel  keeper,  who  was 
ignorant  of  the  fact  even  that  the  milk  was  adulterated.  It  was  proved 
that  it  was  a  sale  of  adulterated  milk,  and  it  was  so  decided. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Perhaps  there  was  something  in  the  milk  that  was 
deleterious  to  health. 

Senator  ALLEN.  That  is  upon  the  well  understood  principle  of  the 
law  that  a  man  can  not  plead  his  ignorance  of  the  law. 

Mr.  HEWES.  If  I  understood  the  Senator  right,  the  suggestion  was 
that  this  committee  were  too  good  lawyers  to  need  any  legal  references 
or  references  to  cases.  Otherwise  I  would  simply  strew  the  table  with 
cases  from  Maine  to  California. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  While  I  am  on  this  question  I  will  ask  you  this : 
Do  you  understand  that  in  foreign  countries— you  spoke  of  France  and 
Holland  and  Belgium — what  oleomargarine  is  sold  is  sold  as  of  the  same 
color  as  butter? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Oftentimes,  yes.  That  is  a  good  general  question  and 
a  good  general  answer.  In  foreign  countries  oleomargarine  is  sold  of 
the  same  color  as  butter. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  And  they  are  able  to  enforce  their  laws  without 
having  an  anticolor  law  ?. 


458  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  HEWES.  But  the  correlative  also  follows — that  is,  that  the  trend 
of  taste  over  there  oftentimes  is  toward  uncolored  butter,  and  in  France 
particularly. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Where  you  have  uncolored  butter  you  have 
uncolored  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Oftentimes. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  And  where  you  have  colored  butter  you  have 
colored  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  HEWES.  That  is  the  case  oftentimes,  but  that  is  neither  here 
nor  there. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Mr.  Hewes  appears  to  be  familiar  with  the  laws  of 
foreign  countries.  In  which  country  in  Europe  is  there  a  tax  on 
oleomargarine? 

Mr.  HEWES.  None  that  I  know  of.  I  do  not  think  even  in  Germany 
there  is  a  tax. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  May  I  interpose  here,  and  say  that  those  countries 
have  stations  and  are  enabled  to  handle  this  matter  from  a  central 
point  without  the  use  of  a  tax  ? 

Mr.  HEWES.  If  you  are  going  to  introduce  these  international  ques- 
tions, 1  would  like  the  privilege  of  reading  to  this  committee  right  now 
the  report  of  the  speed  of  Von  Buelow  yesterday.  I  do  not  know 
whether  you  have  read  it  or  not,  but  it  is  very  apropos,  and  I  think 
it  ought  to  govern  our  Congress  as  well  as  theirs : 

VON  BUELOW  FAVORS  THE    CANAL  BILL — HIS   ARGUMENT  IN   THE   LOWER    HOUSE    OF 
THE   DIET  FOR  THE   MEASURE. 

[By  cable  to  the  American.] 

BERLIN,  January  9. 

The  imperial  chancellor  (Count  von  Buelow),  in  the  lower  house  of  the  Diet, 
to-day  strongly  supported  the  claims  for  the  protection  of  agriculture.  He  said: 

"I  consider  it  the  foremost  duty  of  the  Government  to  effect  a  reconciliation  in  the 
existing  economic  difficulties  and  the  adjustment  of  the  varying  interests  supporting 
those  who  are  unable  to  help  themselves  through  their  own  strength.  1  shall  abide 
by  the  opinion  that  when  one  member  of  a  social  body  suifers  all  the  others  suffer, 
and  especially  that  as  long  as  such  an  important  member  as  agriculture  is  unhealth- 
ful  the  entire  organism  must  be  undermined.  I  am  convinced  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  Government  to  afford  trade,  industry,  and  agriculture  an  equal  measure  of  pro- 
tection, but  that  one  of  them,  agriculture,  absolutely  needs  strong  protection.  It  is 
in  pursuance  of  this  principle  of  even-handed  justice  that  the  bill  for  the  comple- 
tion and  improvement  of  the  canals  has  been  drawn  up.  If  the  measure  favored 
industry  at  the  expense  of  agriculture,  or  the  west  monarchy  to  the  detriment  of 
the  east,  I  would  not  have  supported  it. 

"With  the  view  to  solidify  the  agriculture  of  the  east  and  the  industry  of  the 
west,  a  series  of  further  schemes  had  been  bound  up  in  the  Rhine-Elbe  Canal  project, 
of  some  interest  to  navigation,  but  chiefly  for  the  benefit  of  the  tillers  of  the  soil, 
by  the  establishment  of  a  continuous  network  of  waterways,  advantageous  to  all 
parts  of  the  empire,  opening  the  industrial  territory  of  the  west  to  the  agricultural 
products  of  the  east. 

"It  is  my  deliberate  conviction,"  said  the  chancellor,  "that  the  agricultural 
products  of  the  east,  with  these  cheap  means  of  transit,  aided  by  an  assured  protective 
tariff',  for  which  we  must  provide  and  for  which  we  will  provide,  will  be  enabled  to 
hold  their  own  in  the  west,  which  in  turn  will  secure  facilities  for  the  distribution 
of  the  products  of  the  factories." 

Yon  Buelow's  idea  here  is  that  you  must  protect  agriculture.  Why  I 
Because  the  wealth  of  the  nation  lies  in  the  laud,  and  the  strength  of 
the  land  is  in  agriculture.  That  is  an  economic  principle  that  has  been 
established  from  the  foundation  of  this  Government,  and  Von  Buelow 
only  echoes  that.  It  is  one  of  the  agrarian  maxims  of  foreign  govern- 
ments that  if  you  do  not  protect  agriculture  your  country  must  decay, 
and  that  is  the  reason  why  he  is  in  favor  of  it. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  459 

Senator  ALLEN.  As  one  member  of  the  committee,  I  entirely  agree 
with  you  upon  that  proposition. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Does  he  not  refer  to  the  tax  upon  agriculture  from 
imported  goods,  not  the  section  from  home  industries? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Suppose  he  does.  He  does  not  want  colored  oleomar- 
garine to  come  in  there  and  interfere  with  agriculture  in  that  country. 

This  is  our  bill.  This  is  the  bill  of  the  dairy  interests  of  this  coun- 
try. This  is  the  bill  to  amend  the  biJl  we  originally  brought  here.  We 
ask  for  its  consideration.  We  do  not  ask  you  not  to  listen  to  these 
antagonistic  interests  on  the  other  side.  We  are  liberal  people.  We 
presume  they  have  to  come  here  and  speak  for  their  pockets;  but  is  it 
not  asking  too  much  to  ask  you  to  make  secondary  the  great  industry 
of  the  country  that  these  few,  these  seventeen  or  twenty-seven  manu- 
facturers of  oleomargarine,  may  thrive  upon  the  fraudulent  article  they 
are  producing?  I  say  it  is  prsposterous  and  yet  we  are  willing  to  sit 
and  listen  to  them;  to  listen  to  whatever  they  have  to  say;  to  listen  to 
their  legal  representatives,  and  have  you  listen  to  them. 

Senator  ALLEN.  We  must  do  that. 

Mr.  HEWES.  You  must  do  that.  You  can  not  help  it.  But  we  do  say 
this:  Admitting,  or,  as  we  say  at  law,  demurring  to  their  evidence,  then 
what  have  we?  We  have  60,000,000  people  in  the  United  States  who 
say,  u  Pass  the  Grout  bill."  They  have,  to  give  them  the  most  liberal 
construction,  about  14,000,000  people  who  are  oleomargarine  people,  or 
their  friends  are  people  who  want  oleomargarine,  and  they  say.  "Do 
not  pass  it."  What  is  this  committee  here  for?  What  is  this  Congress 
here  for?  To  listen  to  the  will  of  the  people,  to  be  governed  by  the  will 
of  the  people;  and  when  sixty  million  appear  against  ten,  what  is  your 
duty?  Your  duty  is  to  listen  to  the  sixty  million. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Suppose  the  60,000,000  people,  in  the  judgment  of  a 
Senator,  were  wrong,  would  you  insist  that  he  should  follow  out  their 
wishes? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Is  the  Senator  to  sit  in  judgment  against  60,000,000 
people? 

Senator  ALLEN.  He  must  sit  in  judgment.  His  final  judgment  upon 
the  correctness  of  a  thing  after  he  hears  it  must  be  his  sole  guide. 

Mr.  HEWES.  Then  he  must  do  as  his  heart  prompts  him. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Very  well.    That  is  what  he  should  do. 

Mr.  HEWES.  If  the  Senator  says  that  60,000,000  people  are  wrong 

Senator  ALLEN.  Suppose  my  people  instructed  me  to  vote  for  this 
bill  or  against  it. 

Mr.  HEWES.  You  would  not  heed  them. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Suppose  my  conviction  was  contrary  to  their  will? 

Mr.  HEWES.  You  would  be  guided  by  your  conviction. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Would  it  not  be  my  duty  as  an  officer  to  follow  out 
my  best  judgment? 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  would,  and  I  would  tell  my  constituents  if  they  did 
not  like  my  action  they  could  ask  for  my  withdrawal,  and  I  would 
resign. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Or  would  you  seek  some  method  by  which  to 
compromise  the  thing? 

Mr.  HEWES.  1  would  not.     There  is  no  compromise  possible. 

Let  me  get  back  now  where  I  started. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Referring  to  the  enforcement  of  these  laws  in  foreign 
countries,  is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  word  " margarine"  is  printed  on  the 
manufacturers'  original  package  and  that  the  retail  dealer  does  not 
brand  the  package  at  all  when  he  sells  it? 


460  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  HEWES.  No,  sir;  it  is  not  that  way  in  England.  In  England  he 
has  to  make  up  his  own  package  and  mark  it  "margarine,'7  just  the 
same  as  we  do  here;  and  he  must  mark  it  so  that  the  buyer  can  see 
what  he  is  buying. 

When  we  came  into  this  Congress  in  1886  we  said  to  you  gentlemen, 
"We  want  you  to  do  the  policing  for  this  thing.  We  want  you  to  put 
this  under  your  jealous  care,  so  that  no  man  can  sell  oleomargarine  for 
butter,"  because  we  thought  they  could  do  it.  We  knew  how  zealous 
they  were  in  trying  to  enforce  the  law  in  respect  to  tobacco.  We  knew 
that  no  man  could  possibly  work  up  half  an  ounce  of  tobacco  unless  he 
had  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Kevenue  or  his  deputy  upon  his  heels 
to  say  what  the  product  was,'  and  we  thought  they  could  enforce  this 
law.  They  do  not  enforce  the  law.  They  do  not  see  that  people  carry 
out  the  nineteen  sections  of  this  bill. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  In  the  matter  of  tobacco,  do  they  go  further  than 
to  collect  the  tax? 

Mr.  HEWES.  That  is  that  compromise  you  were  talking  about. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  No;  do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  tax  provisions 
of  the  law  of  1886  have  not  been  executed? 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  mean  to-saj'  that  whenever  they  find  a  person  who  is 
not  doing  exactly  as  that  law  says,  they  send  for  him  and  they  make 
some  settlement  with  him. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  they  do  the  same  with  the  tobacco  people 
and  the  whisky  people? 

Mr.  HEWES.  They  compromise. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  They  arrest  them  for  violating  the  law. 

Mr.  HEWES.  But  nine  times  out  of  ten  they  send  for  them  to  come  up 
and  settle,  and  they  do  settle. 

With  respect  to  this  oleomargarine  business.  In  the  State  of  Mary- 
land last  year  we  had  141  cases,  and  we  are  now  standing  before  the 
bar  of  our  court  of  appeals  with  this  original  package  case,  with  no  hope 
of  winning  it.  That  is  the  trouble.  We  have  no  hope  of  ever  winning 
that.  Why  ?  Because  Judge  Taylor,  who  is  as  fair  a  man  as  ever  sat 
upon  any  court  whatever,  and  who  is  a  friend  of  the  dairy  and  a  friend 
of  ours,  has  told  me,  and  he  has  written  in  that  Fox  case,  in  89  Mary- 
land, that  you  can  not  restrict  or  prohibit  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  in 
its  original  package  unless  you  prove  that  it  is  deleterious  to  health. 

You  see  how  impossible  it  is  for  us  to  do  it.  It  throws  the  burden  of 
proof,  it  is  true,  upon  the  traverser  to  show  that  it  is  not  deleterious  to 
health,  and  what  does  he  do  ?  He  brings  in  his  expert  testimony,  and 
you  have  listened  to  it  here  by  the  volume.  When  these  chemists  tells 
you  that  an  article  is  chemically  pure,  what  do  they  mean  by  that  ? 
They  mean  simply  this,  that  sulphuric  acid  is  chemically  pure,  that 
nitric  acid  is  chemically  pure;  but  when  it  comes  to  a  question  of  pure 
food,  all  the  testimony  of  the  chemists  falls  to  the  ground.  It  is  not  a 
question  of  a  chemically  pure  article.  It  is'  a  question  of  pure  food 
you  are  talking  about. 

So  we  ask  you  to  make  a  favorable  report  on  this  Grout  bill,  because 
of  two  things.  In  the  first  place,  it  reduces  to  a  minimum  the  chance 
to  deceive  ultimately.  It  is  a  potential  fraud  that  is  reprehended  and 
deprecated  in  the  Plumley  Case  (155  Mass.,  421).  That  is  the  trouble. 
It  is  a  potential  fraud,  where  this  man  may  deceive  in  the  restaurant, 
or  where  the  purchaser  may  be  deceived. 

Mr.  MILLER.  What  is  the  difference  between  pure  food  and  chemically 
pure  food  ? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Pure  food  is  something  that  is  pure,  and  chemically 


OLEOMARGARINE.  461 

pure  food  is  what  a  chemist  says  is  chemically  pure,  the  same  as  he 
must  go  to  work  and  analyze  all  the  fats  of  oleomargarine.  He  shows 
they  are  chemically  pure ;  but  suppose  they  come  out  of  cats.  Every  one 
of  these  fats  in  oleomargarine  can  come  from  dogs  and  cats  and  horses. 
Some  of  them  come  from  Shoemaker's  place  and  Horner's  place  in 
Baltimore. 

I  thank  you  for  your  attention. 

STATEMENT    OF    C.  Y.  KNIGHT,  SECRETARY   OF    THE   NATIONAL 

DAIRY  UNION. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  want  to  open  this 
matter  by  reading  a  statement  which  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  which  I 
received  from  a  retail  grocer's  clerk  in  the  city  of  Chicago  some  time 
last  year.  I  am  familiar  with  the  gentleman's  name,  but  I  have  not 
put  it  in  here.  I  will  vouch,  however,  for  the  condition,  and  prove  it 
to  you,  but  I  merely  read  it  as  an  introduction. 

During  the  pa"st  twenty-two  years  I  think  I  have  worked  in  nearly  every  first- 
class  grocery  in  Chicago,  and  I  can  truthfully  say  that  eight  out  of  every  ten  have 
been  and  are  still  selling  butteriue  for  pure  butter.  I  recently  was  employed  in  one 
of  the  largest  groceries  and  markets  on  one  of  the  most  prominent  streets  of  the.  city. 
During  the  time  I  was  employed  there  we  never  sold  one  pound  of  butter,  for  we 
never  had  it  in  the  house  to  se'll.  We  clerks  would  talk  among  ourselves  about  it, 
and  would  often  compare  notes  with  other  clerks,  and  to  satisfy  myself  I  made 
quite  a  canvass  of  all  the  stores  in  the  mile  and  found  only  one  that  did  not  impose 
on  its  trade. 

Gentlemen,  from  experience  I  can  vouch  for  the  accuracy  of  that 
statement,  and  I  want  to  give  you  a  little  experience  and  1  propose  to 
demonstrate  it  right  here.  The  evening  before  I  left  Chicago  1  took 
my  stenographer  at  4  o'clock  and  started  out  on  a  tour  to  visit  the 
so  called  butter  stores.  I  went,  and  was  gone  just  one  hour,  and  visited 
ten  stores;  and  while  I  did  not  think  of  it  at  the  time,  it  corresponds 
with  that  statement.  Eight  of  those  stores  sold  me  each  a  package  of 
goods.  At  two  of  them  they  told  me  they  had  no  butter.  They  said 
"We  do  not  keep  butter  at  all;"  but  the  other  eight  sold  me  what  pur- 
ported to  be  butter.  Now  here  is  a  package  of  what  was  bought  for 
pure  butter  at  24  cents  per  pound,  and  the  signature  of  the  girl  who 
bought  it  is  on  it.  There  is  the  package  [exhibiting  a  package.]  You 
may  be  able  to  find  a  mark  on  that.  It  was  bought  as  butter  for  24 
cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Do  you  know  now  that  it  is  not  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  We  will  demonstrate  that,  Mr.  Jelke,  before  we  get 
through.  The  store  which  sold  that  butter  had  this  sign  in  front: 

Try  our  best 

Elgin  creamery  butter, 

5  pounds  $1.00. 

Here  is  a  package  from  the  store  of  Hughes  &  Schick.  I  will  give 
to  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  a  little  pamphlet  that  we  got  out 
some  time  ago  with  a  photograph  of  a  sign  in  the  front  of  that  place, 
"Grass  Dairy,  15c.  a  pound."  I  openly  denounced  those  people  as 
swindlers  in  a  publication,  150,000  copies  of  which  I  have  sent  broad- 
cast. That  is  the  place  where  I  bought  that  package. 

Here  is  a  place  where  we  bought  a  pound  of  so-called  butter,  at  No.  8 
Wells  street.  These  are  all  on  one  street.  We  went  from  one  place  to 
another  on  the  same  street  within  a  distance  of  several  blocks.  That 
we  bought  at  25  cents  a  pound. 


462  OLEOMARGARINE. 

This  package  was  bought  at  a  place  which  was  originally  known  as 
the  Ohio  Butter  Company,  but  later  as  the  Metropolitan  Market,  No. 
44  Fifth  avenue,  an  illustration  of  the  sign  of  which  you  will  find  on 
page  3  of  tbis  pamphlet,  at  the  bottom — the  Ohio  Butter  Company. 
Those  are  all  photographs  which  I  made  myself. 

Here  is  a  package  from  William  Broadwell's  place. 

Now,  I  would  like,  Senator,  to  have  you  open  that,  if  you  will,  and 
just  look  at  the  package. 

(Senator  Allen  then  opened  the  package.) 

Mr.  JELKE.  Is  the  price  on  each  package? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir;  every  package  is  plainly  marked.  Senator 
Heitfeld,  here  is  one  from  the  same  place,  and  Senator  Dolli  ver,  here  is 
another  one  from  the  same  place. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  What  place  is  that? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  William  BroadwelPs  place. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  You  seem  to  have  patronized  him  very  exten- 
sively. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  will  show  you  why  in  a  minute.  Have 
you  found  the  mark  " Oleomargarine"  on  it,  Senator? 

Senator  ALLEN.  No,  I  have  not. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  the  puzzle.  Find  the  mark.  If  you  will  open 
it  this  way  [indicating],  and  get  around  there,  I  think  you  will  find 
something  of  the  mark. 

Now  I  want  to  read  from  a  pamphlet  issued  by  William  Moxley,  of 
the  city  of  Chicago : 

Facts  about  butterine.  Compiled  and  published  by  William  J.  Moxley,  for  the  use 
of  the  general  public. 

He  says  on  page  6 : 

Before  the  Senatorial  committee,  previously  mentioned,  a  Mr.  William  Broadwell, 
one  of  the  largest  dealers  in  high-grade  butterine,  spoke  of  millionaires  and  men  with 
silk  hats  being  his  most  numerous  customers,  in  fact,  forming  in  line  to  get  a  pail  of 
William  J.  Moxley's  butterine.  His  remarks  caused  considerable  laughter  among 
the  audience,  but  created  consternation  in  the  ranks  of  producers  of  creamery  butter, 
who  realized  the  impossibility  of  successful  contradiction. 

I  will  show  you  the  front  of  Mr.  BroadwelPs  store  as  it  was  photo- 
graphed, in  that  corner  down  there  where  he  sells  Mr.  Moxley's  high- 
grade  butterine — one  of  the  largest  dealers  in  the  city  of  Chicago.  That 
is  his  sign  [indicating].  I  photographed  that  in  September  myself.  It 
stood  there  for  two  or  three  years  until  I  photographed  it,  and  when  he 
found  we  had  used  it,  that  part  of  the  sign  was  torn  down,  and  these 
are  the  remains. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Is  that  the  store  where  the  gentlemen  in  silk  hats  go  to 
ask  for  butterine  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  that  is  the  one. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Have  you  any  photographic  views  of  Siegel,  Cooper  & 
Co.'s,  or  Kothchild's,  or  any  of  the  leading  merchants  of  Chicago? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  not  answer  any  questions  now,  Mr.  Jelke;  I  am 
busy.  I  have  got  this  thing  on  hand,  and  I  have  waited  a  good  while. 

Now,  I  want  to  read  you  an  extract  from  the  report  of  the  assistant 
food  commissioners  to  convince  you  what  kind  of  business  Mr.  Broad- 
well  is  doing  with  Mr.  Moxley's  butterine: 

The  other  case  is  No.  27,  that  of  William  Broadwell,  where  the  defendant  and  his 
witnesses  swore  that  they  sold  nothing  but  oleomargarine,  and  that  they  had  a  sign 
behind  the  counter,  "  No  pure  butter  sold  here;  only  oleomargarine;"  that  they  always 
informed  those  asking  for  butter  that  they  had  only  oleomargarine,  and  they  had  no 
signs  reading  " creamery  butter;"  that  the  stamp  was  always  on  the  outside  of  the 
package  when  handed  to  customers,  and  that  for  seven  years  they  had  always  wrapped 
it  in  that  manner. 


And  ye 

t~.li  A  sii.rr 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  463 


And  yet  I  have  21  packages  gotten  by  21  different  people,  all  wrapped 
the  same  as  that  from  that  party,  and  William  J.  Moxley  defends  him 
every  time  anybody  attempts  to  prosecute  him,  and  one  of  his  men  is 
here  spoken  of  as  a  witness  in  the  case  where  the  food  commission  has 
prosecuted  that  man  and  endeavored  to  convict  him. 

What  are  the  facts  in  the  case?  Two  inspectors  of  the  food  depart- 
ment went  and  purchased  samples  of  that  stuff  as  butter  and  for  butter. 
He  sold  it  that  way.  They  went  into  court  and  made  an  affidavit  as  to 
what  they  had  bought  it  for  and  where  they  bought  it.  He  brought 
three  witnesses  to  swear  that  they  called  for  oleomargarine,  and  that 
he  gave  them  oleomargarine,  all  properly  stamped.  That  is  the  way 
they  do  business  in  Chicago. 

Now,  going  back  to  where  we  started,  I  want  to  give  you  a  little  bit 
of  history  of  local  conditions.  There  are  produced  in  Chicago  46,500,000 
of  the  107,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  made  in  the  United  States. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  How  do  you  get  at  the  107,000,000? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Why,  from  the  last  report  of  the  Internal  Eevenue 
Commissioner. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  Secretary  of  Agriculture  seemed  to  state 
it  at  less  than  that. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  He  was  a  year  behind. 

In  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  pretty  near  all  of  that  is  in  the  northern 
district,  there  are  2,691  of  the  9,000  dealers  in  the  United  States.  Of 
the  9,068  retail  dealers  doing  business  in  the  United  States  for  the  year 
ending  July  1  last,  7,073  were  violating  the  various  anticolor  laws  of 
the  United  States  and  1,995  were  doing  business  as  permitted  by  the 
laws.  Of  the  107,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  produced  in  the 
United  States  for  the  year  ending  July  1, 1900,  66,820,196  pounds  were 
produced  in  States  which  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  colored 
oleomargarine,  and  40,240,859  pounds  were  produced  in  those  States 
which  permit  such  production. 

But  to  go  on  with  my  little  story.  Here  is  another  package  which  I 
bought  at  No.  65  Eandolph  street,  personally.  I  went  in  and  said  to 
the  man,  "I  want  some  creamery  butter."  He  said,  u  We  have  no  cream- 
ery butter;  we  have  dairy."  I  said,  "All  right;  I  will  take  some  dairy. 
How  much  is  it?7  He  said,  "Nineteen  cents."  Senator,  you  will  find 
a  little  faint  attempt  there  to  make  a  mark  on  that.  I  have  found  it, 
but  nobody  else  would.  I  said  to  him,  "Look  here;  this  is  not  dairy 
butter." 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  does  that  [indicating]  signify? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  the  Government  stamp.  I  said,  "  What  is  this? 
This  is  stamped  oleomargarine.  I  do  not  want  oleomargarine."  He 
said  "  I  will  tell  you.  This  is  dairy  butter.  We  have  to  stamp  it  oleo- 
margarine, because  it  is  dairy  butter  in  which  a  little  tallow  has  been 
mixed,  and  when  there  is  any  tallow  mixed  with  it  we  have  got  to  mark 
it  oleomargarine,  but  it  is  mostly  butter."  That  is  the  way  he  puts 
people  oft  when  they  go  to  him  and  call  him  down  in  the  matter. 

Here  is  another  package  that  was  bought  at  a  place  called  the  Madi- 
son butter  store,  at  25  cents  a  pound.  They  call  it  Price  &  Keith's 
creamery  butter.  Price  &  Keith  is  a  butter  firm  that  has  gone  out  of 
existence,  and  they  have  adopted  the  name  and  put  it  on  oleomargarine. 
This  man,  as  are  most  of  the  others,  is  under  indictment  there  in  Chi- 
cago and  their  cases  will  probably  never  come  to  trial.  His  clerk 
admitted  to  me  that  she  was  instructed  by  her  employer  that  when 
anybody  came  in  and  asked  for  oleomargarine,  to  go  and  show  them  a 
little  package  of  3  pounds  of  butter  that  they  had  had  in  the  store 


464  OLEOMAKGAKINE. 

for  about  a  year,  and  that  was  rancid,  and  tell  them  that  was  oleo- 
margarine. Then  of  course  they  did  not  want  oleomargarine,  and  she 
would  turn  around  and  sell  them  that  oleomargarine,  which  was  really 
oleomargarine,  at  25  cents  a  pound,  as  butter. 

Here  is  the  Cold  Springs  Creamery,  No.  72  Eandolph  street.  The 
price  does  not  seem  to  be  on  there  at  all. 

Now  to  come  back  to  what  I  started  out  with.  I  have  got  here  a 
package  which  I  purchased  in  the  markets  in  this  city;  and  I  want  to 
say  to  Senator  Heitfeld  about  this  market  that  the  management  of  it 
itself  looks  after  it  and  sees  that  the  people  who  are  trading  there  are 
not  deceived  or  defrauded.  That  is  one  reason  why  there  is  not  any 
fraud  in  the  market  down  there.  Here  is  a  piece  of  oleomargarine  I 
bought  from  Wilkius  down  here  this  morning;  and  I  am  going  to  put 
that  in  our  test  tube  here,  and  show  you  what  oleomargarine  melts  like, 
if  I  can  get  my  apparatus  together.  That  is  oleomargarine,  and  I  am 
going  to  mark  it  on  the  top  "O."  If  anybody  has  any  doubts  about  it 
they  can  have  it  sent  out  and  have  it  analyzed,  or  I  will  leave  it  here 
with  the  committee  if  that  question  is  raised.  I  also  have  here  some 
pure  butter — something  that  I  believe  to  be  pure. 

Senator  HEITFELD.    Are  you  sure  about  it? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  I  will  show  you  whether  it  is  or  not  in  a  minute. 
I  am  going  to  put  that  in  a  tube  with  a  black  cork. 

(Mr.  Knight  then  put  some  samples  from  the  different  packages  that 
he  had  exhibited  into  test  tubes,  corked  .up,  and  he  put  the  test  tubes 
in  a  bucket  containing  warm  water.) 

Mr.  JELKE.  Have  you  any  process  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  think  it  might  be  possible  to  get  some  in  Washington ; 
I  do  not  know. 

Now  1  want  to  open  these  packages,  and  see  whether  there  are  any 
concealed  marks  about  them.  They  were  all  bought  as  butter.  Ah, 
there  it  is.  It  is  turned  under  and  concealed.  I  just  want  to  show  you 
how  the  thing  is  done.  If  there  are  any  upon  which  we  do  not  find  the 
marks,  I  will  put  them  in  that  test. 

Now,  here  is  another  trick — using  a  colored  paper  so  that  the  stencil 
will  not  show.  These  samples  were  bought  from  the  stores  as  I  came 
to  them.  Inasmuch  as  there  is  no  mark  on  this  one  [indicating]  I  will 
put  that  in  the  tube,  but,  gentlemen,  I  am  coming  to  the  most  interest- 
ing part  of  this  programme  later  on,  when  it  comes  to  speaking  of  the 
violation  of  the  law.  To  my  positive  knowledge,  of  eight  stores  on 
Fifth  avenue  six  of  them  are  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter.  There 
is  not  a  store  on  Fifth  avenue  that  is  selling  anything  but  oleomar- 
garine, and  there  is  not  one  of  them  that  is  selling  it  for  anything  but 
butter.  There,  gentlemen,  is  what  they  use  as  a  handle  [indicating] 
That  comes  from  the  Madison  butter  store. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Do  they  put  the  handles  around  these  little  packages? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  or  if  you  take  a  larger  one.  They  do  not  handle 
a  pound  of  butter.  Here  is  a  package  from  Hughes  &  Schick.  Let  us 
look  at  that.  (The  package  was  opened  by  Senator  Allen.)  The  cheap- 
est kind  of  brown  paper  is  used,  so  that  nobody  will  ever,  expect  to  use 
it  for  anything  else,  so  that  when  it  is  taken  off  it  will  be  thrown  aside 
always. 

I  sent  last  year  a  detective  to  seventy-eight  places  and  got  samples, 
and  seventy- two  of  them  we  found  to  be  oleomargarine,  all  sold  as  but- 
ter. I  had  my  attorney  send  out  this  letter : 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  465 

[Office  of  H.  V.  Murray,  attorney  at  law.] 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  July  29,  1899. 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  have  been  employed  by  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  to  prosecute  any 
cases  of  violation  of  the  dairy  laws  of  this  State  which  may  result  from  the  arrest 
of  any  dealer  selling  oleomargarine  when  butter  is  called  for.  As  you  probably 
know,  a  commission,  consisting  of  a  food  commissioner  and  eight  assistants  and 
inspectors,  was  provided  for  by  the  late  legislature,  whose  duty  it  is  to  enforce  these 
laws.  The  commissioner  has  been  appointed,  and  until  he  has  appointed  his  assist- 
ants and  gotten  to  work  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union's  inspectors  will  look  after  the  pro- 
tection of  consumers  of  butter  and  see  that  those  who  sell  them  oleomargarine  for 
butter  are  prosecuted  under  the  State  laws,  and  also  reported  to  the  internal- re  venue 
department  as  violators  of  the  internal-revenue  laws.  I  herewith  inclose  extracts 
from  three  State  laws.  These  laws  are  not  tied  up  in  the  courts,  and  the  oleomar- 
garine manufacturers  will  not  place  themselves  in  the  light  of  protecting  those  who 
sell  oleomargarine  for  butter,  although  they  may  consistently  fight  the  law  forbid- 
ding coloring,  which  has  not  yet  been  passed  upon  by  the  supreme  court. 

If  you  sell  oleomargarine  this  year,  rest  assured  that  the  State  food  commissioner 
and  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  will  see  that  you  are  not  permitted  to  sell  it  as  butter. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

HUGH  V.  MURRAY, 
Attorney  for  Illinois  Dairy  Union. 

The  extracts  from  the  three  State  laws  which  were  inclosed  were 
simply  extracts  of  laws  forbidding  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  for  butter. 
That  was  all  there  was  to  that.  We  did  not  attempt  to  do  anything 
with  our  anticolor  law,  because  it  was  tied  up  in  the  court.  I  have  the 
extracts  of  those  laws  just  as  they  were  sent  out. 

That  was  a  letter  that  was  sent  out  in  an  effort  to  get  these  people  to 
conform  to  the  State  laws  requiring  the  informing  of  the  customer  of 
what  he  was  buying  and  the  marking  of  the  package.  Everything  was 
done  just  as  you  find  it  on  these  packages.  There  was  no  mark  in 
sight.  The  oleomargarine  was  advertised  as  butter  at  every  place. 
They  put  up  their  signs  just  as  that  is  shown  there.  I  suppose  there 
are  a  thousand  just  such  signs  as  that  in  the  city  of  Chicago. 

That  letter  of  Mr.  Murray  was  sent  out  July  29, 1899.  On  August  2, 
1899,  this  letter  was  sent  out  by  William  J.  Moxley  to  his  retailers, 
and  probably  to  all  the  licensed  dealers  in  the  city.  I  will  not  say  it 
was  sent  to  every  one,  but  I  know  it  was  generally  received  by  those 
who  traded  with  Moxley.  This  is  his  letter : 

[William  J.  Moxley,  manufacturer  of  fine  butterine,  63  and  65  West  Monroe  street.] 

CHICAGO,  August  2,  1899. 


City. 


DEAR  SIR:  Our  attention  has  been  called  to  two  circulars  which  have  been 
mailed  to  you — one  signed  by  Hugh  V.  Murray,  an  attorney,  and  the  other  by 
Charles  Y.  Knight,  editor  in  chief  of  a  periodical,  without  subscribers,  named  the 
Chicago  Dairy  Produce.  The  circular  bearing  Mr.  Knight's  name  has  at  its  head 
an  imposing  lot  of  names,  gentlemen  whose  aim  it  is  to  prevent  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  butterine,  so  that  the  butter  trust  might  be  enabled  to  get  from  30  to  40 
cents  a  pound  for  butter,  depriving,  as  they  would,  a  great  many  of  the  industrial 
classes  from  being  able  to  use  butter  through  its  excessive  price. " 

With  the  hired  attorney,  who  is  earning  his  fee,  we  have  nothing  to  say,  only  to 
inform  you  that  these  gentlemen  are  trying  to  ring  in  a  bluff.  You  will  notice  in 
their  circulars  that  by  insinuations  they  would  have  people  believe  they  represent 
some  official  authority.  The  internal-revenue  department  looks  after  their  own 
business,  and  the  State  after  theirs,  and  should  this  so-called  dairy  union  interfere 
with  your  business  in  the  way  of  prosecution  as  to  the  State  laws,  we  hereby  guar- 
antee you  protection  to  the  extent  of  paying  all  fines,  costs,  etc.,  until  the  color  law 
is  decided  unconstitutional  in  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  will 
further,  on  receiving  complaint,  take  such  action  for  damages  as  will  make  it 
unpleasant  for  some  of  those  who  are  attempting  to  interfere  with  your  and  our  own 
legitimate  business. 

We  were  under  the  impression  that  the  severe  censure  they  received  from  the 
judges  during  their  filibustering  of  last  year  would  have  been  sufficient  for  all  time, 

S.  Rep.  2043 30 


466  OLEOMARGARINE. 

but  have  been  informed  that  to  be  successful  in  obtaining  money  from  farmers  and 
butter  men  a  few  circulars  with  imposing  headlines  are  required. 

We  strongly  recommend  you  to  pay  no  attention  to  those  circulars.  We  have 
always  been  in  a  position  to  protect  our  customers  from  injustice  and  blackmailers, 
and  will  be  ever  at  your  service  should  you  require  our  aid. 

Respectfully,  yours,  WM.  J.  MOXLEY. 

Now,  our  friend  the  enemy,  there  is  the  pure  butter  right  there 
[exhibiting  a  test  tube].  You  will  notice  that  is  absolutely  clear  and 
that  the  casein  and  water  are  precipitated,  whereas  this  [exhibiting]  is 
muddy.  It  never  will  clarify  except  at  a  temperature  of  about  150. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  What  is  the  object  of  this  test?  Is  it  to 
show  the  indigestibility  of  oleomargarine  as  compared  with  that  of 
butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  a  test  between  oleomargarine  and  butter.  Sena- 
tor Allen  asked  me  something  about  process  butter,  and  I  wanted  to 
show  him  that;  but  I  brought  the  test  tubes  here  primarily  in  case 
there  should  be  any  lack  of  evidence  that  what  I  had  bought  was  oleo- 
margarine at  the  ten  places  I  bought  it  from. 

Our  friend  Jelke's  firm — Braun  &  Fitts — in  reply  to  this  letter  which 
Mr.  Murray  sent  out,  sent  the  following  reply : 

Every  licensed  butteriue  dealer  in  Chicago  has  received  circular  letters  from  the 
secretary  and  attorney  for  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union,  promising  all  sorts  of  trouble  to 
dealers  in  butterine  (that  honest  and  pure  article  of  food).  Well,  now,  don't  you 
believe  a  word  of  it ;  there  is  a  law  against  blackmailing,  and  we  want  now  and 
here  to  go  on  record  to  the  assertion,  as  an  affidavit,  that  we  shall  civilly  and  crimi- 
nally prosecute  any  man  or  party  of  men  interfering  unlawfully  with  the  bntterine 
business  in  this  or  any  other  State.  We  know  exactly  where  we  stand ;  we  are 
properly  advised  on  the  subject,  and  now  we  make  you  a  "fair  offer:"  "Handle  our 
goods  as  you  always  have;  we  in  turn  promise  and  guarantee  full  protection  against 
the  State  law  (which  has  been  declared  unconstitutional)  to  the  extent  of  paying 
cost  of  prosecution,  fines,  and  paying  all  costs  pertaining  thereto."  In  declaring 
the  law  unconstitutional  one  of  the  judges  stated  to  the  effect. "that  the  butterring 
were,  in  his  opinion,  liable  to  prosecution  to  recover  damages  done  an  honest  indus- 
try." Fair  enough,  isn't  it?  Renew  your  efforts,  and^be  assured  that  we  will  be 
prepared  to  fight  any  number  of  rounds  in  any  kind  of  a  legal  fight  to  the  finish. 
Handle  our  butterine  and  be  safe. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Mr.  Knight,  I  think  that  letter  was  instigated  by  the 
condition  of  the  law  regarding  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  in 
Illinois. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  In  what  way,  Mr.  Jelke? 

Mr.  JELKE.  It  was  tied  up  in  the  courts. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  I  did  not  threaten  to  prosecute  anybody  for  selling 
oleomargarine. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  do  not  know  the  date  of  that  letter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do.  It  was  two  days  after  the  date  of  Mr.  Moxley's 
letter. 

Mr.  JELKE.  And  we  had  just  gotten  through  with  a  case  of  black- 
mailers who  had  taken  our  customers  out  to  May  wood. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  was  two  years  before  that. 

Mr.  JELKE.  They  took  six  of  our  customers  out  to  May  wood,  a  suburb 
in  the  country  about  15  miles  farther  than  it  was  necessary  to  go. 
They  took  them  out  there  at  6  o'clock  at  night  when  they  could  not 
get  bail  or  anything  else.  That  is  the  character  of  the  prosecutions  we 
had. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  refer  you  back  to  the  original  letter  in  which 
they  were  threatened  only  with  prosecution  for  selling  oleomargarine 
for  butter. 

Mr.  JELKE.  We  have  never  protected  one  customer  in  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  for  butter,  and  never  attempted  it.  We  never  had  any 
idea  we  would  do  it. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  467 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Let  me  tell  you  something.  The  representative  of  the 
firm  of  Braun  &  Fitts,  Mr.  Lowry,  attended  every  trial  in  which  we 
made  a  prosecution  for  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter.  He  went  their 
bail  and  looked  after  them. 

Mr.  JELKE.  No,  sir;  not  for  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  beg  leave  to  differ  with  you.  Did  you  not  go  with 
Mr.  Moxley  and  employ  Mr.  Worth  E.  Caylor  as  attorney? 

Mr.  JELKE.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Worth  E.  Caylor  has  never  been  in  our 
employ. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Did  not  your  man  Lowry  attend  all  the  trials  ? 

Mr.  JELKE.  He  may  have  done  so.  He  has  such  instructions,  to  keep 
thoroughly  informed  on  the  character  of  the  prosecutions  we  are  having. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Gentlemen,  this  is  a  matter  of  record,  that  when  we 
began  proceedings,  a  number  of  times  when  I  was  in  the  justice's  court, 
they  telephoned  over  to  Braun  &  Fitts  for  Mr.  Lowry  to  come  and  go 
the  bail  of  people  whom  we  had  arrested  for  selling  oleomargarine  for 
butter. 

I  have  the  briefs  in  the  case.  We  brought  suits  in  the  justice's  court 
in  Chicago.  We  had  seventeen  people  arrested  and  they  were  defended 
by  Worth  E.  Caylor,  whom  at  least  Mr.  Moxley  admits  having  employed. 
I  do  not  need  to  read  from  the  warrant  under  which  these  arrests  were 
made,  because  I  can  read  from  Mr.  Caylor's  brief,  in  which  he  states  the 
case,  although  the  warrants  are  here  complete.  I  read  from  page  24  of 
the  brief  of  Worth  E.  Caylor,  attorney  for  the  defendants  in  these  cases, 
employed  by  the  butterine  men  to  defend  the  dealers. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  is  the  title  of  the  case? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  title  of  the  cases  are  "The  People  of  the  State  of 
Illinois,  plaintiff',  v.  M.  A.  Wright,"  and  "  The  People  of  the  State  of 
Illinois,  plaintiff,  v.  Charles  E.  Horrie,  defendant."  The  two  cases  are 
in  one  brief.  Probably  I  had  better  read  the  warrant. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Oh,  it  is  not  necessary.  They  can  be  put  into  the 
record  if  you  want  them. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  warrants,  anyhow,  were  sworn  out  for  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  as  butter  without  informing  the  purchaser  of  the  fact 
that  it  was  oleomargarine,  and  without  stating  the  quantity  of  ingredi- 
ents therein.  What  was  their  defense"?  Their  defense  was,  in  the  first 
place,  that  oleomargarine  is  butter — that  it  is  oleomargarine  butter — 
and  consequently  is  entitled  to  be  called  butter;  in  the  second  place, 
that  the  law  of  the  State  of  Illinois  requiring  you  to  do  as  the  Ohio  law 
does — the  Ohio  laws  were  here  yesterday,  and  I  believe  I  have  a  copy 
of  them  here — was  unconstitutional.  We  never  have  had  a  law  yet  that 
they  did  not  call  unconstitutional. 

The" brief  says: 

It  is  very  evident  that  a  man  who  sells  an  article  can  not  know  the  proportions 
that  any  adulterant  enters  into  the  butter,  unless  he  mixes  or  manufactures  it.  Mere 
hearsay  from  the  person  from  whom  the  seller  purchases  the  article  would  not  be 
evidence  of  the  correct  proportions  or  ingredients,  so  as  to  relievo  the  seller  from  any 
liability.  The  labeling  by  the  manufacturer  or  the  mixer  of  the  article  would  not 
bind  the  seller  with  the  true  knowledge  of  the  constituents  of  the  article  sold. 

Manifestly  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  retailer  or  seller  to  make  a  chemical 
analysis  of  every  article  of  this  kind  that  enters  his  place,  because  it  would  make 
such  additional  expense  that  it  would  prohibit  the  sale  of  the  article.  If  it  would 
prohibit  the  sale  of  the  article,  the  statute  is  unconstitutional. 

That  is  the  same  objection  they  raise  to  every  law  that  is  passed  to 
restrict  the  sale  of  oleomargarine — uwe  can  not  sell  it  under  that  law;" 
consequently  that  is  unconstitutional.  I  just  want  to  bring  your  atten- 
tion to  that  point  to  show  you  that  their 'cry  that  a  law  is  prohibitory 


468  OLEOMAKGAKINE. 

and  that  they  can  not  operate  under  it  is  raised  against  every  law  that 
has  ever  been  brought  up. 

We  went  ahead  and  endeavored  to  prosecute.  We  brought  the  mat- 
ter before  a  justice  of  the  peace.  In  one  case  I  think  we  went  into 
court  twelve  times.  The  first  case  we  brought  before  the  court — and 
we  thought  we  were  doing  a  pretty  shrewd  trick  at  the  time — was  the 
case  of  a  man  who  sold  oleomargarine  manufactured  by  an  illicit  manu- 
facturer. We  thought  we  would  at  least  get  a  case  with  this  man 
defending,  because  he  was  not  a  customer  of  theirs.  What  was  our 
surprise  to  find  their  attorneys  defending  this  man  who  was  selling 
oleomargarine  manufactured  by  an  illicit  concern. 

Senator  HANSBROUGKE.  That  is,  a  concern  that  had  not  paid  the 
regular  tax? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir.  And  the  amusing  thing  about  this  whole 
business  is  that  in  this  little  statement  I  read  from  here,  Mr.  Moxley 
speaks  of  how  his  attorney  routed  us  in  that  case.  The  effort  was  made 
there  to  prove,  and  they  did  prove,  that  this  man  whom  we  had  arrested 
had  bought  this  oleomargarine  as  butter.  When  we  had  determined 
ourselves  that  he  was  innocent  of  knowledge  of  the  kind  of  goods  he 
was  selling  we  dismissed  the  case,  because  we  did  not  care  to  proceed 
against  the  man  who  really  thought  he  was  selling  butter.  They  made 
their  boast  about  how  they  got  that  man  dismissed,  etc. 

A  few  weeks  ago  the  internal  revenue  department  took  that  factory 
up  and  exposed  it  and  arrested  the  man  and  put  him  in  $5,000  bonds, 
which  was  evidence  enough  that  our  proposition  and  our  claim  that 
this  was  oleomargarine,  which  we  proved  by  two  chemists,  was  true. 
In  none  of  the  cases  that  came  up  in  Chicago — we  prosecuted  seventeen 
of  them  at  an  expense  of  $1,600 — did  they  once  deny  the  allegation 
that  oleomargarine  had  been  sold  as  and  for  butter.  That  was  never 
denied,  They  simply  defended  on  technical  grounds,  and  in  the  five 
years  I  have  been  in  Chicago,  endeavoring  to  prosecute  these  people, 
we  never  have  been  permitted  to  go  as  far  as  the  jury  with  the  case. 

There  was  a  young  man  here  who  raised  the  point  and  asked  the 
Secretary  of  Agriculture,  "  Did  you  ever  know  a  case  where  a  consumer 
made  a  complaint  and  prosecuted  a  dealer  for  selling  oleomargarine  for 
butter?"  I  have  had  dozens  of  consumers  come  to  me  and  offer  to  go 
on  the  stand  as  witnesses  against  people  who  sold  them  oleomarga- 
rine for  butter.  Why  did  we  not  take  them!  Instead  of  taking  their 
evidence,  we  went  out  and  got  evidence.  In  the  first  place,  a  consumer 
who  knows  enough  of  law  to  get  evidence  in  regard  to  an  article  like 
this  is  very  difficult  to  get.  Yon  can  not  let  the  article  go  out  of  your 
hands  from  the  time  you  get  it  until  you  put  it  in  the  hands  of  a 
chemist.  None  of  them  understand  that,  hardly.  They  put  it  in  their 
ice  box,  and  then  the  question  of  identity  of  the  goods  would  come  up, 
and  they  can  not  make  the  connection  between  the  sale  and  the  time  it 
goes  to  the  chemist,  because  they  never  think  of  it  at  the  time. 

Another  thing.  Every  time  we  have  had  a  case  up  we  have  had  to 
go  into  court  from  at  least  three  to  a  dozen  times.  The  food  commis- 
sion, when  they  first  started  to  prosecute  cases  in  Chicago,  undertook 
to  use  some  of  the  consumers,  and  there  were  two  or  three  cases  in 
which  consumers  did  go  to  the  food  commission  and  bring  them  samples 
and  offer  to  give  evidence.  What  did  they  do?  Mr.  John  S.King, 
employed  by  William  J.  Moxley  &  Co.,  is  defending  to-day  the  cases  in 
which  the  food  commission  is  charging  the  people  with  selling  oleomar- 
garine for  butter.  There  was  a  letter  carrier,  for  instance,  who  came 
into  the  food  commission  and  offered  them  a  sample.  The  chain  was 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  469 


complete  so  that  they  could  prosecute,  and  they  brought  the  case  up. 
This  letter  carrier  was  working  in  the  post-office.  He  came  over  to 
court  and  sat  around  three  or  four  hours.  Then  the  case  was  put  off 
for  several  days  more.  They  sent  for  the  letter  carrier  again  and  took 
him  away  from  the  post-office  for  three  or  four  hours  more.  That  went 
on  four  or  five  times  until  the  letter  carrier  said,  "  I  can't  devote  any 
more  time  to  it."  There  are  not  many  consumers  who  can  go  into 
court  half  a  dozen  times  at  any  time  they  may  be  called  on.  I  know, 
from  the  fact  that  we  have  to  pay  a  chemist  $25  a  time  for  ten  appear- 
ances, that  it  is  expensive  business  to  prosecute  those  people,  and  it  is 
absolutely  impossible  to  get  a  consumer  to  come  as  a  witness  five  or  six 
times  to  prosecute  one  of  these  cases  unless  you  pay  him,  and  the 
minute  you  pay  him  that  thing  is  brought  out,  and  you  know  how  it 
would  stand  in  court. 

I  realize  that  my  time  is  limited  and  that  I  will  have  little  oppor- 
tunity to  present  very  much.  1  am  sorry  I  have  not  more  time,  because 
I  have  devoted  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  this  matter. 

I  want  now  to  call  attention  to  another  letter  of  Mr.  Moxley,  adver- 
tising his  oleomargarine,  dated  October  22,  1898,  in  which  he  says: 

Your  profit  will  be  double  the  amount  made  from  the  butter  you  are  now  handling, 
and  your  butter  trade  will  be  more  satisfied  if  you  will  sell  them  such  butterine  as 
you  can  buy  from  me. 

That  is  one  of  the  inducements  offered,  double  the  profits  on  butter 
that  is  sold. 

Now  I  want  to  read  a  letter  from  the  food  commissioner  of  the  State 
of  Illinois : 

STATE  FOOD  COMMISSION,  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS, 

Chicago,  December  17,  1900. 
Mr.  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT, 

Secretary  National  Dairy  Union,  Chicago,  III. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  reply  to  your  inquiry,  I  beg  to  say  that  it  is  my  impression  that 
about  75  per  cent  of  all  the  oleomargarine  retailed  in  Chicago  is  sold  as  butter.  The 
stamp  required  by  the  United  States  revenue  office  is  generally  so  indistinct  and 
wrapped  up  so  that  no  one  can  see  it  unless  they  hunt  for  it,  and  consequently  is 
altogether  ineffective  as  far  as  it  warns  the  customer.  No  one  who  has  not  tried  it 
has  any  conception  of  all  the  difficulties  in  enforcing  the  honest  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine. While  I  believe  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  sell  their  product  hon- 
estly, it  is  my  impression  that  they  are  backing  the  retailers'  defense.  At  least,  the 
lawyer  defending  these  retailers  in  the  justice's  court  incidentelly  made  the  remark 
in  my  presence  to  the  effect  that  he  could  stay  all  day,  as  the  people  behind  him 
had  plenty  of  money. 

And  I  know  absolutely  that  the  man  who  is  defending  those  people  for  selling 
oleomargarine  for  butter  is  paid  in  Moxley's  interest.  Moxley's  own  man  told  me  so. 

In  order  to  illustrate  this,  I  inclose  copy  of  a  part  of  my  report  to  the  commis- 
sioners referring  to  case  No.  27.  Two  of  our  inspectors  had  called  at  that  store,  and 
one  of  them  asked  distinctly  for  a  pound  of  butter,  and  he  was  handed  a  pound  of 
oleomargarine,  wrapped  up  in  the  manner  peculiar  to  that  retailer;  and  these  two 
inspectors,  as  well  as  the  State  analyst,  who  witnessed  the  opening  of  the  package, 
swore  that  the  stencil  was  not  visible  until  the  package  had  been  unwrapped  and 
examined. 

Yours,  truly,  J.  H.  MONRAD, 

Assistant  Food  Commissioner. 

Now  I  want  to  pay  my  respects  to  two  other  matters,  and  particularly 
to  the  gentleman  who  has  come  before  you  and  held  himself  out  to  rep- 
resent the  laboring  men  of  this  country.  I  hold  here  a  copy  of  a  price 
list  or  a  letter  sent  out  by  the  Capital  City  Dairy  Company ,  of  Columbus, 
Ohio,  a  concern  whose  charter  last  August  was  revoked  by  the  supreme 
court  of  the -State  of  Illinois  for  repeated  defiant  violations  of  the  law. 
I  have  the  decisions  in  those  cases  here,  but  I  will  not  stop  for  that. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Will  you  pardon  one  question? 


470  OLEOMARGAEINE. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Why  have  not  the  Capital  City  Dairy  Company  closed 
up  ?  We  wish  they  would  close  up. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  did  not  close  up  because  they  changed  into  a 
partnership  and  got  around  a  decision  of  the  supreme  court.  The 
supreme  court  revoked  their  charter  and  appointed  receivers  to  wind 
up  their  business  on  account  of  these  violations  of  the  law. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Can  not  Mr.  Blackburn  close  them  up  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  He  got  that  far  toward  it.  They  have  dodged,  how- 
ever, and  made  themselves  into  a  partnership. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  that  case  is  pending  before  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  have  given  it  up,"  and  resolved  themselves  into  a 
partnership. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Have  you  any  evidence  to  substantiate  that  state- 
ment? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Only  what  Mr.  Pirrung,  one  of  the  partners,  told  me  in 
this  room  a  few  days  ago. 

This  is  the  letter: 

[The  Capital  City  Dairy  Company,  makers  of  butterine,  highest  qiiality  only,  Nos.  185  to  197  Third 

avenue  east.] 

COLUMBUS,  OHIO,  December  1,  1899. 

DEAR  SIR:  With  the  appended  change  in  price  list  we  can  only  reiterate  that  our 
"Purity"  grade  is  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  most  makes  creamery  butterine;  there- 
fore "  Purity"  selling  at  20  cents,  "Buckeye"  or  "Pride"  should  sell  at  25  to  30 
cents.  If  you  want  a  popular-priced  grade,  our  "Silver  Leaf"  is  particularly  appro- 
priate. Ever  remember  this  indisputable  fact:  You  can  obtain  for  our  butterine 
a  better  retail  price  than  for  any  other  make  in  the  United  States. 

Purity,  14  cents  per  pound. 

Silver  Leaf,  15  cents  per  pound. 

Buckeye,  17  cents  per  pound. 

C.  C.  Pride,  18  cents  per  pound. 

Prices  subject  to  change  without  notice. 

Goods  billed  at  price  in  effect  on  day  of  shipment 

F.  O.  B.  Columbus,  Ohio,  net  cash. 

DIFFERENTIALS. 

One-half  cent  advance  for  solids  under  25  pounds  and  rolls  or  prints  2  pounds  and 
over. 

One  cent  for  rolls  and  prints  1  pound  and  less  than  2  pounds;  also  small  tubs  in 
crates  and  boxes;  also  unsalted  butterine. 

One  and  one-half  cents  for  rolls  or  prints  of  one-half  pound  and  less  than  1  pound. 
Two  cents  for  rolls  and  prints  under  8  ounces. 

Mixed,  catch,  or  country  rolls  figured  at  prices  of  smallest  roll  or  print  in  package. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

THE  CAPITAL  CITY  DAIRY  Co. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  want  to  ask  you  if  anybody  would  be  foolish 
enough  to  think  that  any  grocer  would  try  to  sell  butterine  at  30  cents 
as  butterine;  and  here  is  the  suggestion  that  he  can  get  30  cents  for 
that  grade  of  their  butterine.  It  is  quoted  at  18  cents  a  pound  to  him, 
and  that  means  a  margin  of  12  cents  a  pound  to  the  dealer. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Where  is  that  factory? 

Mr.  KNIGKET.  That  is  at  Columbus,  Ohio;  and  I  am  informed  by 
Senator  Scott,  who  was  at  one  time  Internal  Kevenue  Commissioner,  that 
he  was  compelled  to  levy  a  fine  of  $5,000  on  those  people  for  viola- 
tions of  the  internal-revenue  law.  He  told  me  that  over  in  the  room 
of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  of  the  United  States  Senate.  I  want 
to  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  if  you  will  introduce  in  the  Senate  a 
resolution  asking  for  the  records  of  these  different  concerns  that  have 


OLEOMARGARINE.  47l 

appeared  before  you,  you  will  find  a  long  string  of  prosecutions  behind 
almost  every  one  of  them.  I  do  not  say  every  one. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  dispute  that,  Mr.  Knight. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  except  Armour  &  Co.  and  Swift  &  Go. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Find  one  against  us,  Mr.  Knight. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  find  an  offer  of  $7,500  to  compromise  a  case. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Not  one  dollar. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Proceed  in  order,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  have  made  the  statement  here  that  Braun  &  Fitts, 
of  which  Mr.  Jelke  is  a  partner,  offered  to  settle  a  case  where  one 
Kouey  and  two  other  men  had  shipped  something  like  $140,000  worth 
of  oleomargarine,  with  the  stamps  scratched  off,  as  butter  into  the 
various  States,  one  of  whom  was  detected;  and  you  can  not  deny 
that  you  came  to  the  commissioner's  office  and  that  you  and  Mr.  Dady 
were  there  and  that  you  looked  out  for  bail  for  these  people. 

Mr.  JELKE.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  were  there  and  you  looked  out  for  bail  for  them, 
and  Mr.  Clark  J.  Tisdell,  assistant  United  States  attorney  for  the 
northern  district  of  Illinois,  informed  me  that  in  those  cases  Brauu  & 
Fitts  had  offered  $7,500  compromise.  That  is  my  information. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Your  information  is  not  correct,  Mr.  Knight. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  say  further  that  in  the  case  of  a  concern  wiiose 
attorney  appeared  here  last  night,  a  new  concern  in  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington, the  president  of  that  company  has  three  indictments  hanging 
over  him  in  this  District  of  Columbia  to  day,  which  have  been  there 
for  three  or  four  years,  for  scratching  stamps  from  oleomargarine. 
They  are  in  the  Federal  courts,  but  have  never  been  tried.  His  brother 
was  sent  to  jail  for  six  months,  and  it  was  only  the  slip  of  4;he  United 
States  attorney  that  this  man  was  not  included  in  that  indictment. 
The  attorney  himself  said  he  should  have  been  included.  But  those 
indictments  you  will  find  pending,  and  I  think  you  will  find  that  he  is 
under  bond,  if  you  go  down  to  the  district  attorney's  office.  I  am 
only  speaking  of  those  things  to  show  you  the  character  of  a  great 
many  of  these  people  and  their  business.  There  are  a  great  many 
things  I  would  like  to  present,  but  here  I  think  is  one  of  the  most 
important.  A  gentleman  named  McNamee,  I  believe 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  At  your  service,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Coming  from  the  city  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  where  the 
Capital  City  Dairy  Company  is  located,  brings  you  a  lot  of  resolutions. 
On  sifting  them  down,  I  believe  you  will  find  there  are  28  labor  organi- 
zations which  have  passed  resolutions  against  the  Grout  bill.  I  received 
from  Cleveland,  Ohio,  a  paper  containing  a  report  of  a  meeting  of  one 
of  those  organizations,  where  this  matter  was  brought  up  by  Mr. 
McNamee.  it  appears,  I  believe,  that  Mr.  McNamee  is  an  organizer  of 
labor  organizations.  He  presented  this  case,  and  from  my  understand- 
ing and  my  information  from  Cleveland — I  may  be  mistaken;  I  am 
giving  this  second  hand — it  was  stated  before  them  that  two  big  cor- 
porations, Swift  and  Armour,  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  were  making  an 
effort  to  get  a  law  which  would  crush  the  Ohio  companies  out  of  exist- 
ence. The  account  of  the  proceedings  of  that  meeting  says: 

"Moved  that  the  Cleveland  Federation  of  Labor  do  not  interfere 
between  two  capitalistic  corporations."  I  have  the  proceedings  and  I 
expected  to  produce  them  here.  But,  Senator  Hansbrough,  you  are 
pretty  well  acquainted  with  union  labor.  You  are  a  newspaper  man. 
I  am  a  union  printer,  and  was  brought  tip  at  the  case.  I  belonged  to 
the  typographical  union.  I  know  it  is  not  the  policy  of  labor  unions  to 


472  OLEOMARGARINE. 

antagonize  any  class  of  men  who  are  endeavoring  to  protect  their  inter- 
ests. Labor  unions  are  organized  for  the  protection  of  their  own 
interests;  they  are  organized  to  get  better  prices  for  their  product, 
that  of  their  own  hands,  and  they  are  in  favor  of  everybody  else  doing 
the  same  thing.  I  never  saw  a  fairer  lot  of  men  in  this  matter  than 
the  laboring  men  whom  I  have  talked  with. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Will  Mr.  Knight  yield  to  a  few  questions? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No:  not  right  now.     When  I  read  this,  I  will. 

As  an  evidence  of  this  fact,  in  1897,  when  we  had  before  the  legisla- 
ture of  the  State  of  Illinois  a  law  which  sought  to  prohibit  the  coloring 
of  oleomargarine  in  the  semblance  of  butter,  known  as  the  Fuller  bill, 
which  I  was  looking  after  at  the  time,  and  which  passed  the  legislature 
finally,  I  went  to  the  Federation  of  Labor  of  the  city  of  Chicago  and 
called  on  its  legislative  committee.  I  called  those  gentlemen  together 
and  I  told  them  the  condition  of  things  in  Chicago.  I  showed  them 
what  we  were  attempting  to  accomplish,  and  asked  their  cooperation 
in  the  matter.  I  asked  them  if  they  could  not  give  the  indorsement  of 
the  Federation  of  Labor.  They  said  they  did  not  think  there  was  any 
doubt  but  what  they  could.  I  now  want  to  read  you  from  the  Chicago 
Federationist,  a  labor  paper,  of  the  date  of  April  9,  1897 : 

WORKINGMEN  INDORSE  IT — ANTICOLOR  BILL  APPROVED  BY  THE  CHICAGO  FEDERA- 
TION OF  LABOR — COLORED  OLEOMARGARINE  CONDEMNED  AS  A  FRAUD — A  RESO- 
LUTION PASSED  AT  LAST  SUNDAY'S  MEETING  INDORSING  THE  FULLER  BILL  IS 
UNANIMOUS — LABOR  IS  AGAINST  THE  FRAUD. 

The  defenders  of  the  colored  oleomargarine  fraud  have  had  their  last  prop  knocked 
from  under  arguments. 

For  years  they  have  pleaded  for  protection  of  oleomargarine  "  in  behalf  of  the 
working  man."  Oleomargarine  was  christened  "the  poor  man's  butter7' by  those 
who  were  aiding  manufacturers  in  making  millions  off  the  same  "poor  man." 

The  anticolor  bill  was  brought  before  the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  by  the 
legislative  committee  of  that  body  Sunday,  April  4,  by  Chairman  Williams,  who  has 
claimed  that  large  quantities  of  oleomargarine  were  being  dealt  out  in  the  city  by 
retailers  to  those  who  called  for  butter  and  paid  for  butter.  This  fraud  was  made 
possible,  he  stated,  because  of  the  fact  that  the  substitute  was  made  in  perfect  sem- 
blance of  butter,  and  the  workingman  was  the  chief  victim.  He  explained  that  the 
only  remedy  for  this  fraud  was  the  enactment  of  a  law  which  would  make  it  possible 
for  buyer  and  consumer  to  distinguish  the  compound  whenever  he  saw  it. 

Only  one  delegate  in  the  entire  body  objected  to  the  indorsement  of  the  measure, 
and  after  he  thoroughly  understood  the  question  he  moved  to  make  the  vote  for  its 
adoption  unanimous,  which  was  done. 

The  sentiment  expressed  by  the  different  delegates  to  the  federation  at  the  close 
of  the  meeting  was  that,  should  a  petition  be  circulated  among  the  army  of  work- 
ingmeu  of  Chicago  calling  for  the  passage  of  the  Fuller  anticolor  law,  it  would 
meet  with  no  opposition. 

Then  the  resolution  which  was  passed  at  that  time,  and  which  I  have 
in  my  possession  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  reads  as  follows : 

CHICAGO,  April  4,  1897. 
CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT, 

Secretary  Dairy  Union. 

DEAR  SIR:  At  a  meeting  of  the  Chicago  Federation,  held  on  the  4th  instant,  that 
body  unanimously  indorsed  the  Fuller  bill,  and  requested  all  subordinate  bodies  to 
use  their  utmost  to  secure  its  passage. 

Very  truly,  VICTOR  B.  WILLIAMS, 

Chairman  Legislative  Committee,  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor. 

I  will  tell  you  something  in  connection  with  that.  When  the  bill  was 
passed  the  box-makers'  union,  which  was  a  member  of  this  Federation 
of  Labor,  found  out  that  they  had  been  making  the  boxes  for  oleomarga- 
rine, so  they  began  to  see  the  matter  in  a  different  light.  After  they 
found  their  boxes  were  used  to  hold  oleomargarine  they  came  to  the 


OLEOMARGAKINE.  473 

conclusion  that  oleomargarine  was  a  good  thing  after  all,  and  they 
rescinded  the  action  of  the  Federation  of  Labor  of  the  city  of  Chicago, 
and  called  on  the  legislature,  I  think,  to  repeal  the  law,  or  something 
like  that. 

Further  than  that,  here  last  fall,  before  I  came  to  Washington,  I  was 
called  on  by  the  chairman  and  secretary  of  that  Chicago  Federation  of 
Labor.  They  showed  me  a  resolution  which  had  been  put  before  that 
body  condemning  the  Grout  bill,  and  they  said  they  thought  the  whole 
thing  should  have  thorough  investigation  before  it  went  through.  I 
took  them  along  this  Fifth  avenue.  They  came  to  me  at  a  hotel -which 
is  on  Fifth  avenue,  and  I  went  along  Fifth  avenue  with  them,  because 
it  is  within  half  a  block  of  my  office,  and  I  could  find  throughout  the 
city  2,000  places  like  that  where  I  bought  the  alleged  butter.  I  showed 
them  these  places.  They  were  perfectly  dumfounded  that  such  a  state 
of  affairs  should  exist,  and  they  gave  me  their  word  that  no  resolution 
of  that  kind  should  be  passed,  and  that  the  Dairy  Union  should  be. 
assisted  in  its  position  in  asking  for  this  10-cent  tax.  I  knew  nothing 
further  than  that  until  this  resolution  came  floating  down  here  and  was 
put  into  the  House. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  For  or  against  the  Grout  bill? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Against  the  Grout  bill. 

Mr.  MoNAMEE.  Do  you  mean  to  cast  such  an  imputation  as  that 
against  the  representatives  of  organized  labor  as  to  say  they  had  been 
seen  and  influenced? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  saw  a  couple  of  them  myself. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  You  acknowledge  here  before  this  committee,  do 
you,  that  you  have  been  trying  to  bribe  members  of  organized  labor 
to 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No,  I  do  not. 

Mr.  MCNAMEE.  You  make  that  insinuation — that  they  had  been  seen 
in  order  to  change  their  opinion.  We  all  know  what  that  means. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  they  could  not  make  any  arrangements  without 
seeing  them,  I  think. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  think  you  are  under  a  little  apprehension,  Mr. 
McNamee. 

Mr.  SNIGHT.  I  want  to  pay  my  respects  now  to  my  friend  from  Cin- 
cinnati. He  has  had  a  good  deal  to  say  here.  I  have  heard  from 
Cincinnati  since  he  has  been  talking.  I  can  not  read  all  I  have  heard 
from  Cincinnati,  but  I  can  put  it  in  the  record.  I  am  very  pleased  to 
have  him  vouch  for  one  concern  in  Cincinnati  with  which  I  am  well 
acquainted — that  is,  the  French  Brothers  Dairy  Company.  If  you  will 
look  over  the  record  you  will  find  that  he  spoke  of  them  as  being  very 
nice  people,  and  he  said  the  president  of  the  company  was  treasurer 
of  the  county  of  Hamilton,  or  something  of  that  sort,  and  that  they 
were  not  in  such  business  as  that  they  would  be  interfered  with,  and 
that  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati  the  business  was  done  in  a  public  way — 
and  everything  of  that  kind.  I  have  a  telegram  here  from  French 
Brothers  Dairy  Company,  as  follows : 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  January  9,  1901. 
Secretary  National  Dairy  Union,  National  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Large  percentage  oleo  sold  here  as  butter.  Hurts  legitimate  butter  business.  We 
want  Grout  bill  passed. 

THE  FRENCH  BROS.  DAIRY  Co. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  In  order  that  there  may  be  no  conflict,  I  wish  to  call 
attention  to  the  statement  that  I  made,  which  was  that  I  had  talked 
with  the  Messrs.  French  personally,  and  with  some  young  man  in  their 


474  OLEOMARGARINE. 

office  who  was  a  relative,  bu  I  do  not  recall  his  name.  T  just  met  him 
that  day.  It  was  their  personal  experience.  I  do  not  know  from  whom 
that  emanates,  or  whether  it  is  anybody  in  authority  or  anything  of  that 
kind. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  believe  you  told  me  that  if  they  found  me  with  a  let- 
ter signed  with  their  name  on  it,  I  would  be  held  responsible.  Was  it 
not  you  who  told  me  that  on  the  House  side?  It  was  somebody. 

Here  is  another  letter : 

[Chas.  Heidrich  &  Co.,  commission  merchants,  butter,  eggs,  poultry,  calves,  game,  green  and  dried 

fruits,  etc.,  33  Walnut  street.] 

CINCINNATI,  January  7,  1901. 
CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT,  Esq.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  the  Grout  bill  is  before  the  Senate,  and  as  we  are  anxious  for  the 
bill  to  pass,  we  take  pleasure  in  writing  you  a  few  lines. 

This  butterine  is  sold  here  by  retailers,  grocers,  market  hucksters,  and  everybody 
.else,  and  is  panned  off  to  the  trade  for  butter.  The  wholesalers  here  have  told  us 
that  they  charge  one-half  cent  a  pound  advance,  and  lay  that  money  aside  to  fight 
the  food  inspectors.  Every  time  a  man  is  arrested,  and  that  from  5  to  20  a  week 
are  arrested  for  panning  off  butterine  for  butter,  these  wholesale  men  protect  them. 
They  come  up  and  pay  the  fine  and  the  retailer  sells  it  again. 

Now  we  hope  that  this  bill  will  pass  and  this  evil  will  be  stopped.    We  shall  write 
to  one  or  two  Senators  also. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

CHAS.  HEIDRICH  &  Co. 

This  one  is  from  the  firm  of  Herman  Westerman : 

[Herman  Westerman,  general  commission  merchant,  120  West  Court  street.] 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  January  7,  1901. 
Mr.  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  In  reply  to  your  inquiry  addressed  to  a  neighbor  of  mine,  I  am  informed 
that  the  "  Grout  bill "  is  to  be  taken'up  Wednesday  by  the  Senate.  The  butter  busi- 
ness is  almost  at  a  standstill  in  Cincinnati,  owing  to  a  fight  on  between  the  dealers 
of  oleomargarine.  I  am  informed  that  some  is  being  sold  to  retailers  at  10  and  13 
cents  per  pound ;  you  can  see  why  butter  is  not  selling. 

If  I  am  informed  rightly,  you  want  to  know  if  oleo  is  being  sold  for  butter.  It  is 
not  sold  for  butter  by  the  wholesale  dealers,  but  the  deception  practiced  by  the 
retailers  is  where  the  mischief  is  done.  Every  now  and  then  a  raid  is  made  on  these 
dealers.  They  are  arrested,  fined  $50  and  costs,  which  is  paid  by  the  wholesaler  who 
furnishes,  and  in  turn  he  charges  one-half  cent  extra  on  the  oleo  for  this  protection. 

I  regret  that  I  did  not  hear  from  you  personally,  but  trust  you  will  be  as  success- 
ful in  passing  the  "Grout  bill"  by  the  Senate  as  you  did  the  House. 

Wishing  you  every  success,  I  am, 

Yours,  very  respectfully,  HERMAN  WESTERMAN. 


Here  is  a  letter  from  Charles  H.  Hess  &  Co.,  of  Cincinnati : 

immission  merchants,  also  dealei 
b  street.] 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  January  7  190" 


[Office  of  Chaa.  H.  Hess  &  Co.,  general  produce  and  commission  merchants,  also  dealers  in  cheese. 

No.  24  West  Court  street.] 


CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT, 

National  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  learn  from  some  of  the  members  of  the  produce  exchange  of  our  city 
that  a  committee  of  oleomargarine  men  have  reported  in  Washington  that  oleomar- 
garine is  sold  as  oleomargarine  only  in  our  city,  which  is  false  in  its  entirety.  I 
know  positively  that  there  is  sold  daily  thousands  of  pounds  of  oleomargarine  for 
pure  butter.  And  that  the  food  and  dairy  commissioners  are  either  powerless  or 
are  indisposed  to  antagonize. 

While  there  are  some  arrests  being  made,  it  seems  to  be  on  account  of  local  petit 
jealousies  among  dealers,  and  not  touching  on  the  main  offense.  The  oleomargarine 
dealers  have  a  corruption  fund  with  which  they  encourage  the  retail  dealers  to  sell 
oleomargarine  for  butter. 

In  conclusion,  will  say  that  you  certainly  deserve  the  praise  of  all  honorable  deal- 
ers in  pure  food  for  the  progress  you  are  making. 
Very  respectfully, 

CHAS.  H.  HESS  &  Co. 


OLEOMARGARINE  475 

Here  is  one  that  covers  the  ground  pretty  well,  I  think,  from  T.  L. 
Brundage,  of  Cincinnati : 

[T.  L.  Brundage.    Established  1893.    Commission  merchant.    Butter  and  eggs.    28  West  Court  street, 

Cincinnati.] 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  January  7.  1900. 
CHAS.  Y.  KNIGHT,  ESQ., 

National  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  We  replied  promptly  to  yonr  wire  of  to-day,  regarding  statement  made, 
by  Cincinnati  oleomargarine  man  before  the  Senate  committee  having  charge  of  tho 
Grout  bill.  In  so  far  as  that  statement  refers  to  the  retail  trade  of  Cincinnati,  it  is 
absolutely  false..  Of  course  the  wholesaler,  in  selling  to  the  retailer,  sells  oleomar- 
garine for  what  it  is;  he  could  not  do  otherwise.  The  retailer  sells  90  per  cent  of 
what  he  buys  for  butter,  and  gets  butter  prices  for  it.  More  than  100  retail  grocery 
stores  in  Cincinnati  are  to-day  advertising  the  best  Elgin  Creamery  at  retail  for  25 
cents,  while  it  is  worth  25^  cents  in  a  jobbing  way.  The  only  opportunity,  in  such 
transactions,  for  profit,  is  to  substitute  oleomargarine  for  butter,  which  is  being 
done  to  a  very  great  extent.  The  present  law  compels  the  small  grocer,  if  he  handles 
oleomargarine,  to  become  a  criminal.  I  have  had  a  great  many  of  them  tell  me  that 
they  wished  the  stuff  was  done  away  with  entirely,  or  some  such  restrictions  placed 
on  its  sale  that  deception  would  be  impossible.  The  small  grocer  would  then  be  in 
a  position  to  sell  his  butter  for  what  it  is  and  not  be  compelled  to  meet  the  ruinous 
competition  of  the  larger  dealers  who  use  butter  only  as  a  "stool  pigeon"  in  their 
business.  While  the  Grout  bill,  as  a  law,  would  unquestionably  benefit  the  dairy 
interests,  it  would,  at  the  same  time  be  a  great  help  to  the  small  retailers  all  over 
the  country,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  destroy  the  opportunity  for  fraud  and 
place  them  on  the  same  footing  as  their  competitors  in  business  who  are  unscru- 
pulous in  their  methods.  Summed  up  briefly:  The  oleomargarine  traffic  in  this 
State  is  wholly  illegal,  and  the  only  parties  who  realize  any  benefit  therefrom  are 
the  manufacturers,  jobbers,  and  the  unscrupulous  retailer  who  sells  it  for  butter. 
Very  nearly  2,000,000  pounds  were  sold  in  this  city  during  the  year  1900. 
I  am,  yours,  truly, 

T.  L.  BRUNDAGE, 
E.  I.  BURRIDGE, 

Manager. 
The  rest  of  them  are  as  follows : 

[Office  of  Conrad  Giebel  &  Co.,  wholesale  dealers  in  high-grade  butter,  cheese,  and  provisions,  com- 
mission merchants,  57  Walnut  street.] 

CINCINNATI,  January  7,  1901. 
Mr.  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  In  regard  to  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  for  pure  butter,  we  know  to  be  a 
fact,  especially  in  the  retail  trade,  which  is  very  injurious  to  the  sale  of  pure  cream- 
ery butter.     Hoping  that  you  will  put  forth  your  best  efforts  in  the  passing  of  the 
Grout  bill,  we  remain, 
Yours,  very  truly, 

CONRAD  GIEBEL  &  Co. 


[S.  J.  Stevens  &  Co.,  wholesale  butter  and  cheese,  Cincinnati,  Ohio.] 

JANUARY  7,  1901. 
Mr.  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  As  the  representative  of  the  Chicago  pure  butter  men,  we  write  to  you 
to  use  your  utmost  endeavors  in  meeting  and  refuting  the  arguments  of  those 
opposed  to  the  passage  of  H.  R.  bill  3717,  known  as  the  "  Grout  bill,"  who  say  the 
manufacturers  and  wholesalers  of  butterine  never  sell  it  for  pure  butter.  We  are 
aware  of  this  fact,  as  is  everybody,  because  they  dare  not  do  it.  It  is  the  retailers 
who  offer  it  to  the  unsuspecting  public  as  the  genuine  butter,  and  this  without  any 
interference.  We  know  this  to  be  a  fact  from  transactions  of  this  nature  in  Cincin- 
nati. 

Use  all  the  arguments  you  can  to  promote  the  passage  of  the  bill  at  an  early  date, 
and  that  without  amendment  of  any  kind,  as  amendment  would  only  delay  the  pas- 
sage of  the  bill  and  probably  kill  it. 

Yours,  very  truly,  S.  J.  STEVENS  &  Co. 


476  OLEOMAKGABINE. 

[Telker  &  Dunker,  wholesale  fruit  and  produce  commission  merchants,  No.  118  East  Court  street.] 

CINCINNATI,  January  7,  1901. 
Mr.  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT,  Washington,  J).  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  hear  to-day  that  it  has  been  argued  that  every  pound  of  oleo  sold 
here  is  sold  as  oleo.  This  is  decidedly  not  the  case,  as  any  amount  is  sold  here  as 
butter. 

Respectfully,  yours,  TELKER  &  DUNKKR. 


[Office  of  Blome  &  Dreifus,  commission  merchants,  1010  Race  street.] 

CINCINNATI,  January  7,  1901. 
Mr.  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Have  been  shown  your  telegram  saying  oleo  is  sold  in  our  market  for 
such ;  it  is  very  easy  said  as  the  wholesalers  sell  it  for  oleo  as  they  are  compelled  to, 
but  the  retailer  sells  it  for  what  he  can,  but  invariably  for  butter.  The  writer  has 
bought  on  several  occasions  (just  to  find  out)  butter  and  received  oleo.  The  State 
officers  occasionally  make  some  arrests,  but  the  job  is  too  big.  The  wholesalers  guar- 
antee the  retailers  protection  and  pay  their  fines.  If  the  Government  does  not  pass 
the  Grout  bill,  butter  will  soon  be  a  thing  of  the  past,  as  honest  dealers  in  pure  but- 
ter can  not  compete  with  fraud.  Some  of  the  retailers  make  no  effort  any  more  to 
sell  for  oleo  as  the  wholesalers  pay  the  fines.  There  is  nothing  too  mean  or  low  for 
the  oleo  dealers  to  do. 

Yours,  DAVID  DREIFUS. 


[Finke  &  Schwier,  commission  merchants,  1008  Race  street,  near  Court.] 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  January  7,  1901. 
Mr.  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  have  just  seen  a  telegram  that  a  statement  had  been  made  to  the 
committee  that  all  oleomargarine  was  sold  as  such  in  Cincinnati.  We  wish  to 
emphatically  deny  such  statement.  The  wholesale  dealers  may,  as  the  United  States 
Government  compels  them  to.  but  the  retailers  sell  it  anyway  just  to  sell  it,  because 
they  are  protected  by  the  wholesale  dealers,  who  pay  their  fines,  if  caught.  We 
know  it  is  sold  as  butter  from  personal  observation.  We  also  know  that  the  retail 
dealer  is  protected  in  selling  it,  as  our  customers  tell  us  when  they  take  out  licenses 
that  they  have  no  fear,  as  the  wholesale  dealers  pay  their  fines,  if  arrested.  If  n<f 
check  is  put  on  this  fraud  or  imposition  on  the  consumer,  it  is  only  a  question  of 
time  when  the  dairy  interests  will  be  overwhelmed.  Hoping  the  facts  above  stated 
may  be  of  some  benefit  to  the  crusade  against  the  colored  oleomargarine  fraud,  we 
remain, 

Yours,  truly, 

FINKE  &  SCHWIER. 


[Halfhill  &  Kolb,  general  commission  merchants,  134  West  Court  street.] 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  January  7, 1901. 
Mr.  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  were  shown  a  telegram  on  'change  here  in  which  it  is  asserted  that 
oleomargarine  is  being  sold  in  this  market  as  such,  which  is  an  untruth,  as  it  is  a 
very  common  thing  to  go  into  our  market  and  ask  for  a  pound  of  butter  and  be 
handed  oleomargarine. 

The  State  authorities  here  have  been  unable  to  cope  with  the  combine  here  and  it 
has  been  sold  openly  before  them  as  butter.  We  therefore  ask  you  in  the  interest 
of  pure  food,  and  the  chances  of  killing  one  of  the  largest  industries  in  our  States 
by  this  adulteration  of  butter,  to  do  your  utmost  in  bringing  about  a  fair  and 
equitable  law  in  behalf  of  pure  butter. 

Yours,  very  sincerely,  HALFHILL  &  KOLB. 

The  purport  of  all  these  letters  is  the  same — that  is,  that  it  is  sold  in 
Cincinnati  as  butter  and  for  butter,  and  that  there  is  a  protection  fund 
of  a  half  cent  levied  upon  the  wholesale  sales  to  protect  those  who  do 
the  selling. 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  477 

Mr.  JELKE.  Did  Mr.  Blackburn  go  to  Cincinnati! 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No,  sir;  be  did  not. 

A  VOICE.  Would  it  not  be  well  to  state  to  the  committee  that  this 
Mr.  Brundage  is  a  broker  in  pure  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  All  of  these  people  are  dealers  in  pure  .butter — all 
kinds  of  butter. 

A  VOICE.  In  fact,  more  process  butter  than  pure  butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  know  how  much  process  butter,  or  how  much 
dairy  butter,  or  how  much  ladle  butter,  or  how  much  imitation  ladle 
butter. 

A  VOICE.  Anyone  who  knows  anything  about  Mr.  Brundage  knows 
he  is  a  process-butter  man. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  think  so. 

A  VOICE.  He  sells  more  process  butter  than  he  does  pure  butter,  I 
think. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  If  he  sells  it  legally,  I  can  not  see  the  objection.  You 
do  not  claim  he  sells  it  illegally  ? 

A  VOICE.  Certainly  not;  but  process  butter  is  something  like  oleo- 
margarine. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  call  your  attention,  gentlemen,  to  a  circular 
sent  out  by  Braun  &  Fitts,  under  date  of  March  17, 1899,  in  which  they 
say: 

Eggs  are  selling  at  cost,  but  "the  only  high  grade"  will  give  you  profit,  so  keep 
pushing  its  sale  and  build  up  a  reputation  for  good  butter. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  they  are  making 
artificial  eggs? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir;  they  are.  They  are  making  eggine.  It  is 
an  artificial  egg,  but  not  an  imitation  of  eggs.  There  is  the  difference 
between  a  substitute  and  a  counterfeit. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Are  these  letters  you  have  read  reciting  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  from  jobbers  in  oleomargarine  to  their  customers,  the 
retailers  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Letters  from  jobbers  of  butter? 

Senator  ALLEN.  1  es.  You  have  read  several  letters  here  in  which 
the  writer  would  say  to  the  person  to  whom  it  is  sold  to  go  on  and  sell 
it  and  the  cost  and  expenses  of  prosecution  would  be  met. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  One  of  them  is  the  letter  of  Mr.  Jelke's  firm  and 
another 

Mr.  JELKE.  Oh,  no. 

Senator  ALLEN.  They  are  either  the  manufacturers  or  jobbers. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  manufacturers  in  Chicago,  if  you  mean  the  first 
letters  I  read,  Senator. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  one  of  them  was  Mr.  Jelke's  firm,  and  the  other 
was  Mr.  William  J.  Moxley's. 

Senator  ALLEN.  These  letters  were  either  from  the  manufacturers  or 
the  jobbers  in  this  article? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Those  are  the  manufacturers. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Excuse  me.  Does  not  the  Senator  mean  these  letters 
[indicating]  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  He  is  not  talking  about  the  Cincinnati  letters;  he  is 
talking  about  the  Qther  letters. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  would  like  to  have  it  go  on  the  record  right  here  that 
I  want  an  opportunity  to  look  into  the  gentlemen  who  have  written 
these  letters.  I  only  recognize  one  name,  and  that  is  the  name  of  a 
man  who  is  not  responsible  financially  or  in  any  other  way;  and  as  to 


478  OLEOMARGARINE. 

this  corruption  fund,  I  want  to  deny  it  in  toto  as  to  any  of  my  clients, 
or  as  to  anybody  whom  I  know  in  the  wholesale  business,  as  regards 
defending  cases  for  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  for  butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  have  also  statements  from  the  Secretary  of  Agricul- 
ture about  them,  if  you  want  me  to  give  them.  Now,  gentlemen,  when- 
ever I  tire  you,  I  want  you  to  tell  me. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Have  you  concluded? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  I  have  not  gotten  through  anything  like- what  I 
should;  I  wanted  to  say  something  on  the  price  of  butter.  In  fact,  I 
have  a  tremendous  lot  of  information  in  this  matter  that  has  not  been 
presented  and  that  is  very  vital,  but,  as  you  see,  the  time  I  had 
intended  to  occupy  was  somewhat  occupied  by  other  people. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Can  you  boil  down  what  you  have  to  say 
and  present  it  in  an  hour  to-morrow? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  might. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Try  to  get  the  essential  points,  so  as  to  pre- 
sent it  in  an  hour  to-morrow. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  do  this,  Senator.  If  you  will  let  me  take  up  a 
few  minutes  on  butter  prices  I  will  be  content  to  leave  it  to  you  and  not 
bother  any  further. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Mr.  McNamee  desired  to  ask  a  question,  I 
believe. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Yes,  sir.  Mr.  Knight  says  he  is  a  member  of  organ- 
ized labor.  What  organization? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  Typographical  Union,  when  I  was  at  work  at  the 
trade. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  What  local? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Minneapolis  lodge. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  You  are  an  ex-member? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  said  I  had  been  a  member.  I  employ  nothing  else 
but  union  labor  all  the  time. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  That  is  a  matter  of  policy,  of  course. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes ;  it  is  a  matter  of  policy. 

Mr  McNAMEE.  What  is  your  present  occupation,  Mr.  Knight? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Newspaper  man. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  What  is  the  circulation  of  your  newspaper? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Am  I  supposed  to  stand  here  and  be  questioned  about 
circulation  ? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  What  is  its  policy? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  None  of  your  business,  absolutely,  in  that  case.  It  is 
a  question  that  does  not  concern  you  or  this  case  at  all. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  you  at  present  make  your  living 
as  an  officer  of  the  dairy  unions? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  have  got  an  opportunity  to  answer  now.  1  have 
worked  in  this  case  for  the  last  three  or  four  years  and  our  paper  has 
contributed  liberally  to  the  expense  of  what  we  have  had  to  do  in  it, 
and  I  have  never  received  one  cent  salary.  I  have  only  received  my 
expenses,  and  every  cent  that  has  ever  been  spent  has  been  accounted 
for,  and  the  vouchers  and  accounts  are  open  to  you  or  anybody  else. 

Mr.  MCNAMEE.  You  are  at  present  merely  receiving  your  expenses? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  am. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  You  are  making  this  patriotic  effort,  then 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Can  you  say  as  much  ? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Yes,  sir,  Mr.  Knight;  I  can  say  as  much. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  have  said  you  could,  so  you  are  even. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  I  am  not  through,  Mr.  Chairman.    In  regard  to  the 


OLEOMAKGARINE.  479 

Cleveland  matter.     Are  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Building  Trades 
Council  of  Cleveland  passed  a  resolution- 
Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  don't  know  anything  about  it  except  what  I  stated. 
I  told  all  I  kneT.    If  you  have  any  information  about  it  you  might- 
state  it  to  the  committee. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  suggest  that  we  adjourn  until  half  past  10  to-mor- 
row morning. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  the  committee  adjourns  I  desire 
to  say  that  I  am  a  traveling  salesman  for  a  business  firm  in  Cincinnati, 
and  that  I  am  here  on  private  business.  If»it  were  not  for  that  I  should 
not  be  here. 

Senator  HANSBKOUGH.  That  is  sufficient. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  all  right.     We  understand  each  other,  I  guess. 
The  committee  (at  5.15  p.  m.)  adjourned  until  Friday,  January  11. 
1901,  at  10.30  a.  m. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Friday,  January  11, 1901. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Foster  (acting  chairman),  Money,  and  Dolliver. 
Also,  Hon.  W.  J.  Bailey,  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives ; 
Charles  E.  Schell,  representing  the  Ohio  Butterine  Company,  of  Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio;  W.  E.  Miller,  representing  Armour  &  Co.,  Kansas  City, 
Mo. ;  John  F.  Jelke,  representing  Braun  &  Fitts,  Chicago,  111.,  and 
others. 

CONTINUATION  OF  STATEMENT  OF  CHARLES.  Y.  KNIGHT. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Chairman  and  Senators,  the  first  thing  that  I 
want  to  do  this  morning  is  to  comment  on  this  color  question.  Why 
do  we  color  butter  and  why  not  color  oleomargarine?  And  1  want  to 
speak  relative  to  the  claim  of  the  oleomargarine  people  to  have  origi- 
nated the  color  that  is  used,  and  to  say  something  about  the  natural 
color  of  butter. 

It  is  conceded  by  everybody  that  the  natural  color  of  butter  varies 
at  different  seasons  of  the  year,  under  different  conditions  of  feed  and 
pasture,  and  in  different  breeds  of  cattle  or  cows.  So  how  are  we  to 
determine  whether  or  not  butter  is  naturally  yellow,  and  how  long  it  is 
yellow,  and  how  yellow  it  is? 

The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  what  is  known  as  the 
Tawney  resolution,  calling  for  the  ingredients  used  in  the  making  of 
oleomargarine,  for  the  fiscal  year  1898-99  showed  that  there  were  used, 
in  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine,  148,500  pounds  of  coloring  mat- 
ter. Figuring  that  by  the  gallon,  it  takes  240  some  odd  gallons  to  the 
million  pounds  of  oleomargarine  to  bring  it  up  to  the  standard  color, 
which  is  the  same  as  that  of  butter. 

I  went  to  the  leading  creameryman  of  the  United  States  just  before 
I  left  Chicago.  He  is  the  head  of  a  concern  which  makes  several  mil- 
lion pounds  of  butter  a  year.  I  asked  him  to  give  me  a  statement  of 
the  quantity  of  butter  color  used  in  a  million  pounds  (taken  the  season 
over)  of  their  butter  to  bring  it  up  to  the  standard  color.  He  got  the 
statement  from  his  books  of  the  amount  of  butter  color  used  last  year, 
and  showed  it  to  have  been  70  gallons  per  million  pounds  of  butter. 
So  the  difference  between  the  color  of  butter,  naturally,  and  the  color 
of  oleomargarine,  naturally,  is  as  the  difference  between  70  gallons  of 


480  OLEOMARGARINE. 

color  for  1,000,000  pounds  of  butter  and  240  gallons  of  color  for  1,000,000 
pounds  of  oleomargarine — that  is  to  say,  if  we  take  100  as  a  basis  and 
make  240  gallons  of  color  the  amount  necessary  to  bring  oleomargarine 
from  white  up  to  the  normal  color  of  butter,  then  the  natural  color  of 
butter  would  be  66|  per  cent  of  the  color  that  it  has  the  year  round. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Mr.  Knight,  will  you  permit  just  one  question? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Does  your  creamery  man  state  what  strength  of  butter 
color  he  uses?  Sometimes  it  is  double  and  triple  strength.  I  under- 
stand they  make  a  special  color  which  is  very  powerful. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No.  Wells,  Richardson  &  Co.'s  colors  are  what  they 
use,  Mr.  Jelke,  the  same  as  your  firm  does. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  think  they  make  more  than  one  standard. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No,  sir;  not  unless  they  make  it  especially  strong 
for  you. 

Mr.  JELKE.  We  do  not  use  a  specially  strong  color;  but  they  make 
it,  and  I  know  it  has  been  offered  to  us.  We  have  not  used  it,  however. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Wells,  Richardson  &  Co.  make  but  one  kind  of  butter 
color  that  is  used  in  the  West  for  butter.  I  am  very  familiar  with  their 
business  in  that  respect.  Moreover,  we  surely  do  not  need  for  butter 
(which  is  partly  yellow  in  the  first  place)  a  strong  color.  It  is  the  oleo- 
margarine people  who  need  the  strong  color,  because  they  have  got  to 
bring  their  color  from  a  white  up  to  a  standard.  And  I  think  they  found, 
when  they  first  attempted  to  color  their  product,  that  carrots  were 
needed  in  very  large  quantities  to  make  their  substitute  as  yellow  as 
they  wanted  it;  and  it  was  the  necessity  of  getting  a  very  strong  color 
that  led  them  to  the  use  of  the  aniline  colors  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  MILLER.  There  is  one  reason  why  there  is  that  difference  in  the 
amount  of  coloring  matter  used — at  the  time  of  the  year  when  the 
cows  are  on  grass  they  need  very  little  color. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  that  is  true. 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  accounts  for  the  difference  of  which  you  spoke. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  not  entirely.     That  is  only  a  third  of  the  year. 

Mr.  MILLER.  You  will  acknowledge,  however,  that  that  is  the  time 
of  the  year  when  they  make  the  largest  amount  of  butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  they  make  the  largest  amount  of  butter  then. 
So  that  is  a  concession  that  a  large  amount  of  the  butter  production  is 
naturally  yellow. 

Representative  BAILEY.  It  takes  just  as  much  coloring  matter  to 
make  white  butter  yellow  as  it  does  to  make  white  butterine  yellow, 
does  it  not? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  but  the  butter  is  never  as  white  as  oleomargarine. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Oh,  yes,  it  is. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  a  difference  of  opinion,  then,  which  we  can  not 
settle  here  in  the  committee. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Why,  everybody  who  has  lived  on  a  farm 
and  who  has  eaten  butter  made  in  the  winter  knows  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  expensive  is  the  color? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  color  costs  the  oleomargarine  people  about  $1.70 
a  gallon,  I  think.  It  costs  the  butter  people  more. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  For  the  reason  that  the  oleomargarine  man- 
ufacturers buy  such  large  quantities? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  they  do  buy  large  quantities.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  there  is  more  butter  color  used  in  the  oleomargarine  that  is  made 
in  the  United  States  than  there  is  used  in  all  the  creameries  in  butter. 
I  have  investigated  that  subject,  and  I  know  what  the  business  of  the 
concerns  in  butter  color  is,  because  I  have  gone  into  the  matter. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  481 

Mr.  MILLER.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  there  is  more  butter  color 
used  in  the  107,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  than  there  is  in  the 
1,500,000,000  pounds  of  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  ~No ;  I  said  creamery  butter.  Only  20  per  cent  of  the 
product  of  the  United  States  is  creamery  butter. 

The  next  thing  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  is  a  statement 
made  by  a  gentlemen  who  came  down  here  from  New  York  the  other 
day,  and  pretended  to  be  a  butter  man.  He  is  in  the  butter  business, 
1  believe — the  export  butter  business;  and  it  is  to  his  interest  to  have 
butter  as  low  as  possible,  because  when  it  is  low  he  can  export  it  from 
this  country  more  profitably.  When  butter  is  selling  at  a  price  which 
brings  anything  like  a  fair  return  to  the  producer,  he  does  not  get  much 
of  an  opportunity  to  export  it;  and  he  is  therefore  interested  in  low 
butter  prices.  He  made  a  statement  to  you  about  the  tremendously 
large  increase — or  at  least  about  an  increase;.  I  will  not  say  41  tremen- 
dously large"  increase — in  the  production  of  butter,  as  shown  by  the 
receipts  of  butter  in  New  York  City;  and  he  attempted  to  make  this 
committee  believe  that  the  dairy  business  now  is  better  than  it  ever 
has  been,  by  citing  the  fact  that  last  year  the  market  for  butter  was,  I 
think,  higher  than  it  had  been  for  twelve  years. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  the  statistics  for  receipts  of  butter  in  the  city  of 
New  York  during  the  past  twelve  years. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  that  taken  from  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  This  is  from  the  official  report  of  the  mercantile 
exchange  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  can  be  verified.  I  do  not  think 
it  will  be  contradicted  by  anybody,  however,  Senator. 

With  the  exception  of  the  year  1897,  there  has  never  been  as  much 
butter  received  in  the  city  of  New  York  as  there  was  in  the  year  1890, 
ten  years  ago. 

In  1890  the  receipts  of  butter  in  the  city  of  New  York  were  2,092,115 
packages;  in  1891,  1,843,702  packages;  in  1892,  1,780,826  packages; 
in  1893,  1,654,198  packages.  You  will  see  from  these  figures  that  there 
was  a  decrease  right  straight  down  from  1890,  from  2,092,115  packages 
in  that  year  to  1,654,198  packages  in  1893,  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
The  receipts  began  to  increase  at  that  time,  owing  to  a  reaction  in  the 
market,  and  in  1894  they  were  1,711,466  packages.  In  1895  they  were 
1,708,576  packages;  in  1896,  1,923,061;  in  1897,  2,156,187  packages; 
1897,  then,  was  the  first  year  when  the  receipts  got  up  as  high  as  they 
were  in  1890,  when  they  were  2,092,115  packages.  In  1898  the  receipts 
fell  off  from  those  of  1897. 

(Senator  Allen  at  this  point  took  the  chair  as  Acting  Chairman.) 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  As  I  say,  the  receipts  of  butter  in  the  city  of  New 
York  reached  the  figure  of  2,156,187  packages  in  the  year  1897.  In  the 
year  1898  the  production  of  butter  began  to  fall  off  again,  as  shown 
by  those  receipts,  and  reached  only  2,079,120  packages.  In  1899  it  fell 
off  again,  and  was  2,000,387  packages.  In  1900  there  was  a  falling  off, 
and  it  reached  only  1,911,061  packages. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Senator  Allen).  That  is  the  export  butter, 
isjt? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  these  are  the  receipts  in  New  York,  Senator.  I 
am  giving  these  figures  in  reply  to  a  gentleman  who  was  down  here 
from  New  York  the  other  day  claiming  that  more  butter  was  received 
in  New  York  last  year  than  in  any  other.  I  have  just  shown  that, 
with  the  exception  of  one  year,  the  receipts  in  New  York  have  not 
been  in  ten  years  what  they  were  in  1890. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  recall  his  evidence. 
S.  Rep.  2043 31 


482  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Mr.  Knight,  just  one  question :  Those  figures  represent 
the  number  of  packages'? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Are  they  of  the  same  size? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  know,  Mr.  Jelke. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  know  that  years  ago  a  large  number  of  packages  of 
butter  went  into  New  York  in  the  shape  of  firkins  containing  100  or 
112  pounds. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  is  no  way  of  arriving  at  that  information. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Are  these  tubs  or  firkins? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  is  no  way  of  telling  that. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  receipts  of  butter  since  May  1 
last  in  New  York  show  an  increase  over  the  previous  year? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  they  are  increasing  a  little  over  the  previous 
year. 

Another  thing  to  which  this  gentleman  drew  your  attention  very 
forcibly  was  the  fact  that  last  year  the  price  of  butter  was  higher  in 
New  York  City  than  it  had  been  for  twelve  years. 

Well,  he  simply  misrepresented  the  facts  in  that  case.  Here  is  a 
publication  from  the  Agricultural  Department  giving  a  diagram  of  the 
price  of  butter  for  the  last  ten  years ;  and  1  have  carried  it  out  to  eleven 
years.  I  am  sorry  1  have  not  enough  copies  of  this  publication  to  hand 
one  to  each  member  of  the  committee.  There  it  is,  in  this  chart — the 
line  showing  the  production  of  oleomargarine.  It  shows  the  amount 
produced  in  each  month  as  compared  with  the  preceding  and  successive 
months. 

That  will  reveal  to  you,  gentlemen,  a  little  of  the  cause  of  our  alarm 
in  this  matter.  If  you  will  follow  that  diagram  you  will  see,  Senator, 
that  the  price  of  butter  has  gradually  been  going  down,  down,  down. 
You  will  see  that  in  1398  or  1899  there  was  a  marked  ^advance.  In 
1898  you  will  notice  a  sharp  jump.  The  market  went  upward.  The 
cause  of  that  has  not  yet  been  explained  to  you. 

The  jump  in  the  price  of  butter  in  the  year  1898  was  due  to  droughts 
all  over  Europe.  There  was  a  tremendous  export  demand  for  butter  in 
that  year,  as  a  result  of  a  scorching  drought  all  over  the  continent,  and 
all  over  the  islands  of  England  and  Ireland.  The  importers  of  Europe 
came  here  in  August  for  our  butter,  and  they  cleaned  out  everything 
that  we  could  possibly  sell  to  them.  They  cleaned  up  our  storage  sup- 
plies, among  other  things;  and  the  result  was  that  when  we  came  to 
the  winter  there  was  no  stock  in  storage  from  which  to  draw.  The 
surplus  had  all  been  wiped  out.  That  was  the  cause  of  the  high  prices 
of  that  year.  It  was  not  a  natural  condition  at  all.  What  is  the  con- 
dition to-day?  A  year  ago  the  price  of  butter  in  the  New  York  market 
was  about  30  cents  a  pound  as  a  result  of  that  drought.  To-day  the 
market  in  New  York  is  either  24  or  25  cents,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say 
exactly  which. 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  market  reports  in  the  newspapers  will  give  you  the 
exact  figures. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  but  I  have  not  them. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Knight,  permit  me  to  suggest  this: 
Mr.  Peters,  from  Texas,  a  very  large  cattle  owner,  is  here,  having  come 
from  quite  a  distance.  He  wants  to  make  a  statement,  and  possibly 
you  will  want  to  reply  to  what  he  says. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Very  well;  I  am  willing  to  give  way,  if  you  suggest  it, 
Senator. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  simply  suggesting  to  you  the  pro- 
priety of  the  step.  You  can  use  your  own  discretion  about  it. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  483 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  shall  be  very  glad  to  accommodate  the  gentleman. 
Does  he  \vant  to  be  heard  now?  Is  that  the  idea? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  you  prefer  to  be  heard  now,  Mr. 
Peters? 

Mr.  PETERS.  Either  now  or  at  a  subsequent  time.  I  do  not  want  to 
interrupt  Mr.  Knight  or  you  gentlemen  of  the  committee. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  thought  possibly  you  might  want  to  reply 
to  some  of  Mr.  Peters's  statements,  Mr.  Knight. 

STATEMENT   OF   E.   S.    PETERS,  PRESIDENT   AMERICAN    COTTON 
GROWERS'  ASSOCIATION. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Senator  Allen).  Mr.  Peters,  kindly  give  the 
reporter  your  name,  place  of  residence,  and  business. 

Mr.  PETERS.  My  name  is  E.  S.  Peters;  my  residence  is  Calvert,  Tex. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  occupation? 

Mr.  PETERS.  I  am  a  planter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  To  what  extent? 

Mr.  PETERS.  I  have  over  4,500  ac-res  of  land  in  cultivation.  1  repre- 
sent the  Cotton  Growers'  Association  of  Texas,  and  I  am  the  president 
of  the  American  Cotton  Growers'  Association. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  "You  may  proceed  with  your  statement. 

Mr.  PETERS.  I  would  like  to  state,  gentlemen,  in  this  connection, 
that  I  did  not  come  here  prepared  with  a  speech  or  anything  of  the 
kind.  I  came  here  on  very  short  notice,  and  I  have  simply  gotten  up 
a  few  statistics  to  show  the  amount  involved;  in  other  words,  to  show 
that  the  cotton -oil  industry  will  really  be  affected  very  materially  by 
this  bill.  I  have  here,  figures  from  Mr.  Hart,  the  statistician  of  the 
Department  of  Agriculture,  giving  the  acreage,  production,  and  value 
of  lint  cotton  and  estimated  production  of  cotton  seed  in  the  various 
States  of  the  Union.  I  obtained  them  from  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture so  as  to  be  able  to  speak  from  official  data. 

The  acreage  of  cotton  in  1898-99  was  24,967,295  acres.  The  produc- 
tion of  lint  cotton  was  11,189,205  bales;  and  the  production  of  cotton 
seed  5,594,002  tons.  In  1900-1901  (the  crop  coming  in  now)  the  esti- 
mated crop  of  lint  cotton  is  10,100,000  bales,  and  of  cotton  seed  5,050,000 
tons.  A  ton  of  seed  has  been  selling  at  about  $15  to  $16.  That  is 
what  we  have  been  getting  for  it.  Of  course  I  do  not  know  anything 
at  all  about  oleomargarine;  but  I  know  that  a  certain  percentage  of 
the  cotton -seed  oil  goes  into  that  product. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  say  you  produced  11,000,000  bales? 

Mr.  PETERS.  It  is  the  estimate  of  the  Department  that  the  crop  will 
be  10,100,000  bales. 

Senator  FOSTER.  And  about  half  that  number  of  tons  of  seed? 

Mr.  PETERS.  Yes,  sir;  1,500  pounds  of  seed  cotton  will  make  a  500- 
pound  bale  of  cotton,  and  about  a  thousand  pounds  of  cotton  seed. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  that  worth  a  bale? 

Mr.  PETERS.  It  is  worth  to-day,  I  think,  about  9 J  cents  in  Galveston. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Five  hundred  pounds  to  the  bale,  you  say? 

Mr.  PETERS.  Yes,  sir.  You  are  talking  about  lint  cotton,  are  you 
not? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir.  I  wanted  to  arrive  at  the  value  of  a  bale  of 
cotton,  and  to  get,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  at  the  value  of  the  cotton  pro- 
duced. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  would  be  $47.50. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  $47.50 ;  yes.  And  how  many  bales  comprise  the  pro- 
duct of  the  United  States? 


484 


OLEOMARGARINE . 


Mr.  PETERS.  The  Department's  estimate  of  this  year's  production  is 
10,100,000  bales.  Last  year  it  was  9,142,838.  The  year  before  last  it 
was  11,189,205. 

Now,  Texas  is  more  interested  than  any  other  one  State.  According 
to  this  statement,  we  raise  at  least  a  third  of  the  crop  of  cotton  of  the 
United  States.  I  say  Texas;  Oklahoma  and  the  Indian  Territory  are 
included  in  that.  Last  year  the  amount  of  cotton  actually  raised  in 
Oklahoma  was  66,555  bales,  and  in  the  ludian  Territory,  119,939  bales. 
Now,  the  crop  this  year  for  the  Territories  and  Texas  is  3,570,000  bales, 
representing  1,785,000  tons  of  seed.  That  seed,  at  $15  per  ton,  which 
is  about  the  average  price  that  the  mills  pay,  would  make  about 

Senator  MONEY.  Oh,  you  have  that  too  high. 

Mr.  PETERS.  The  price  of  seed? 

Senator  MONEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  PETERS.  No,  sir;  I  think  not. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Someone  stated  here  the  other  day  that  it  was 
worth  from  $8  to  $10  a  ton. 

Mr.  PETERS.  Allow  me  to  read  you  this  statement,  as  bearing  on 
that  question : 

Prices  of  cotton  seed  (Houston)  per  ton  of  2, 000 pounds,  1898-1900. 
[From  Bradstreet's  quotations.] 


Date. 

1898. 

1899. 

1900. 

$9  50 

$9  00 

$12  00 

February  i                            

9.50 

9.00 

16  00 

March  1 

9  00 

8  00 

15  50 

April  1                                                        

10.00 

8  50 

15  50 

May  1 

10  00 

8  50 

15  50 

10  00 

8  75 

15  50 

July  1                        

9.75 

8.75 

15.50 

9  50 

9  00 

15  50 

September  1                -  -  . 

11.00 

9.00 

15.50 

October  1 

9  00 

11  00 

17  35 

9.00 

12.50 

15.09 

8  00 

12  50 

15  50 

Senator  FOSTER.  Then  the  prices  are  going  up  all  the  time? 

Mr.  PETERS.  Yes;  they  are  higher  this  year  than  they  were  last 
year. 

Senator  MONEY.  They  have  been  going  up. 

Senator  FOSTER.  For  the  reason  that  they  are  making  so  much  more 
oleomargarine? 

Mr.  PETERS.  No;  I  suppose  they  are  finding  more  uses  for  it;  there 
is  a  larger  demand. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  reason  cotton  has  gone  up  is  because  every- 
thing else  on  earth  has  gone  up — on  account  of  the  abundance  of 
money. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  a  practical  raiser  of  cotton,  are  you, 
Mr.  Peters? 

Mr.  PETERS.  Yes,  sir.  I  did  not  raise  much  last  year,  though.  The 
flood  hit  us  pretty  heavily,  and  we  had  a  pretty  bad  time  this  year, 
although  I  raised  a  good  deal  of  cotton.  I  have  raised  over  2,000  bales 
in  one  year.  But  it  is  coming  over  now. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Yes;  you  are  all  right  now. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Go  on,  Mr.  Peters. 

Mr.  PETERS.  On  the  basis  of  these  prices  of  Bradstreet's  and  the 
figures  I  got  from  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  the  valuation  of  the 
crop  of  Texas  and  the  Indian  Territory,  at  $15  a  ton,  would  be  about 
$30,000,000. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  485 

Senator  FOSTER.  For  the  cotton  seed  ? 

Mr.  PETERS.  For  the  cotton  seed — 1,785,000  tons  at  about  $15  per  ton. 

Senator  MONEY.  If  it  will  not  interrupt  you,  I  would  like  to  have 
you  go  back  to  the  price  of  cotton  seed  for  a  moment,  because  the 
prices  you  gave  are  contrary  to  my  experience.  Do  you  refer  to  the 
price  per  ton  of  cotton  seed,  or  the  price  per  bushel? 

Mr.  PETERS.  No;  the  price  per  ton  of  seed  at  Houston.  Let  me  read 
to  you  the  prices  of  cotton  seed  at  Houston,  per  ton  of  2,000  pounds, 
from  1898  to  1900.  These  figures  are  taken  from  Bradstreet's  quota- 
tions. On  the  1st  of  January,  1888,  the  price  was  $9.50;  in  1899  it  was 
$9;  in  1900  it  was  $12. 

Senator  MONEY.  Sixty  bushels  make  a  ton,  you  know. 

Mr.  PETERS.  That  is  the  way  it  is  usually  estimated. 

Senator  MONEY.  Well,  that  is  the  basis  on  which  every  farmer  and 
every  oil-dealer  buys  and  sells. 

Mr.  PETERS.  In  our  section  they  buy  and  sell  entirely  by  the  ton, 
by  weight. 

Senator  MONEY.  Well,  60  bushels  of  seed  will  make  a  ton.  I  have 
lived  on  a  cotton  farm.  In  fact,  I  am  a  farmer  myself.  Now,  that  will 
make  25  cents  a  bushel  for  cotton  seed,  there  being  60  bushels  in  a  ton. 

Mr.  PETERS.  That  is  right. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  point  is  that  in  my  State  we  are  only  getting 
about  $8  a  ton  now. 

Mr.  PETERS.  I  sold  mine  last  year  at  $15.50. 

Senator  MONEY.  Ffteen  dollars  and  a  half  a  ton  ? 

Mr.  PETERS.  Fifteen  dollars  and  a  half  a  ton. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  25  cents  a  bushel.  That  is  higher  than  I 
ever  knew  it  to  be  sold  before. 

Senator  FOSTER.  You  had  better  send  yours  over  to  Texas,  Senator. 

Senator  MONEY.  Yes;  we  might  ship  our  cotton  into  Texas  at  a 
profit,  at  that  rate. 

Mr.  PETERS.  No;  you  do  not  know  the  railroad  people  there.  The 
railroads  charge  us  double  price  west  of  the  river  there  for  everything 
we  ship.  It  takes  about  $2.50  a  bale  to  get  a  bale  of  cotton  to  the  ports 
west  of  us,  while  east  of  us  it  is  only  about  a  dollar. 

Senator  FOSTER.  These  are  Galveston  prices,  are  they? 

Mr.  PETERS.  These  are  Houston  prices. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  You  are  being  robbed  by  somebody  in  some  way, 
Senator  Money. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  "octopus"  has  got  hold  of  you.  [Laugh- 
ter.] But  go  on  with  your  statement,  Mr.  Peters. 

Mr.  PETERS.  This  is  the  letter  I  received  inclosing  the  figures  to 
which  I  referred  a  moment  ago. 

UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OP  AGRICULTURE, 

DIVISION  OP  STATISTICS, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  January  8,  1901. 
Mr.  E.  S.  PETERS, 

Hotel  Raleiyh,  City. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  compliance  with  my  promise  of  yesterday,  I  beg  to 'inclose  such 
information  as  is  available  with  regard  to  the  production  and  price  of  cotton  seed. 
The  information  with  regard  to  prices  is  rather  meager,  and  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  will  meet  with  your  requirements  or  not,  but  it  is  the  best  that  can  be  done  on 
such  short  notice.  So  far  as  production  of  cotton  seed  is  concerned,  it  has  been 
figured  out  on  the  generally  accepted  basis  of  two-thirds  seed  and  one-third  lint; 
in  other  words,  it  is  assumed  that  1,500  pounds  of  lint  and  seed  will  make  500  pounds 
of  lint  and  1,000  pounds  of  seed.  In  the  figures  for  1900-1901  of  production  of  cot- 
ton, it  is  impossible  to  separate  the  production  of  Texas  and  the  Territories,  but  this 
is  explained  in  a  footnote. 

Very  truly,  yours,  JOHN  HYDE. 


486 


OLEOMAKGAKINE. 


Acreage,  production,  and  value  of  lint  cotton  and  estimated  production  of  cotton  seed  in 
named  States  and  United  States,  1898-99  to  1900-1901. 


UNITED  STATES. 


Year. 

Acreage. 

24,  967,  295 
23,  403,  497 
25,  034,  734 

Lint  cotton. 

Cotton  seed, 
estimated 
production. 

Production. 

Bales. 
11,  189,  205 
9,  142,  838 
10,  100,  000 

Value. 

1898-99 

$305  467,  041 
334,  847,  868 

Ton*. 
5.  f>94,  602 
4,  571,  419 
5,  050,  000 

1899  1900                             

1900-1901 

TEXAS. 


1898  99                          

6  991  904 

3  363,  109 

$96,  619,431 

1  681  554 

1899  1900               

6,  642,  309 

2,  438,  555 

92,  187,  133 

1,  219,  278 

1900-1901 

7  041  000 

(i) 

OKLAHOMA. 


1898  99 

215  893 

109  026 

$3  108  942 

54  513 

1899  1900           .    -     

208,553 

66,  555 

2,  512,  584 

33,  278 

1900-1901 

246,000 

(') 

INDIAN  TERRITORY. 


1898-99                

314,  906 

207,  838 

$5,  971,  019 

103,  919 

1899  1900 

299  161 

119  939 

4,  534,  174 

59  970 

19001901              

344,  000 

(i) 

1  Texas  and  Territories,  3,570,000  bales;  this  represents  1,785,000  tons  of  cotton  seed. 

Now,  I  have  said  what  I  wished  to  state  in  reference  to  how  this  bill 
will  affect  us  cotton  planters. 

I  would  like  to  say  this  in  reference  to  the  merits  of  this  case :  I  see 
no  reason  why  the  products  of  one  agricultural  section  should  be  legis- 
lated against  for  the  benefit  of  another  section.  We  all  use  butter 
down  our  way;  in  fact,  I  presume  they  use  it  as  much  there  as  they  do 
anywhere  else.  I  know  I  always  have  plenty  on  my  table  and  never 
have  to  buy  any.  But  there  is  no  right  or  justice  in  taking  one  prod- 
uct for  the  benefit  of  another  agricultural  product. 

I  would  suggest,  in  place  of  placing  the  tax  proposed  by  th:s  Grout 
bill  on  oleomargarine,  that  if  the  butter  men  are  honest  in  what  they 
say,  and  simply  do  not  want  butter  imitated,  that  can  very  easily  be 
remedied,  according  to  my  idea.  I  would  suggest  that  the  products 
of  the  process-butter  factories  be  put  up  round  or  oval  packages,  so 
that  they  can  be  designated  as  process  butter,  and  that  oleomargarine 
be  pat  up  in  square  or  rectangular  packages  and  marked  as  it  is  now. 
If  they  will  make  it  compulsory  by  a  law  with  penalties  attached  to 
put  oleomargarine  up  in  bricks,  a  blind  man  or  a  child  can  tell  exactly 
what  he  is  getting,  and  there  can  be  no  imposition;  and  it  would  not 
work  a  hardship  upon  the  dairy  people  at  all. 

Senator  MONEY.  Then  you  want  the  renovated  butter  marked,  too, 
do  you? 

Mr.  PETERS.  Yes.  Let  the  process-butter  people  put  their  product 
up  in  oval  or  round  packages.  I  think  they  are  the  men  who  need 
looking  after,  if  I  can  judge  from  some  little  testimony  I  have  read  and 
heard. 

I  do  not  know,  Senators,  that  there  is  anything  further  that  I  wish 
to  submit  to  you,  unless  it  is  a  letter  I  received  from  Harvie  Jordan, 


OLEOMARGAKINE.  487 

president  of  the   Georgia    Cotton   Growers'    Protective  Association, 
directed  to  the  committee.     I  will  read  it: 

To  the  honorable  Committee  on  Agriculture. 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  5,  1901. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  GENTLEMEN:  In  behalf  of  the  agricultural  interests  of  my 
State,  which  might  be  affected  adversely  or  otherwise  by  the  passage  of  the  pend- 
ing Grout  bill,  now  in  your  hands  for  consideration,  I  beg  to  herewith  submit  my 
earnest  protest  against  its  favorable  consideration.  The  people  of  my  State  are 
opposed  to  any  legislation  which  fosters  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  another. 

Georgia  is  rapidly  developing  the  dairy  industry,  and  has  also  extended  cotton- 
seed oil  milling  interests.  From  a  careful  reading  of  the  Grout  bill,  I  feel  assured  its 
passage  would  work  serious  detriment  to  the  cotton-seed  oil  industry  of  the  South. 
The  sale  of  our  farm  products  should  be  based  upon  legitimate  demand,  and  every 
article  given  a  fair  showing  in  the  markets. 

The  different  States  will  and  are  enacting  laws  which  will  fully  protect  our  but- 
ter industry  against  the  improper  sale  of  oleomargarine,  and  will  shut  the  sale  of 
that  article  out  of  the  market  as  an  active  competitor,  save  upon  its  actual  merits. 

A  bill  was  introduced  at  the  last  session  of  the  legislature  in  this  State,  and 
passed,  which  guaranteed  absolute  protection  to  the  butter  industry  of  Georgia,  and 
at  the  same  time  left  the  choice  of  purchase  and  consumption  of  butter  and  oleomar- 
garine on  a  fair  and  equitable  basis. 

Sectional  or  class  legislation  is  always  objectionable,  and  should  never  be  tolerated 
in  a  country  of  such  wide  and  varied  interests  as  ours.  I  can  see  no  good  reason  for 
national  legislation  on  the  interests  of  the  Grout  bill.  I  am  chairman  of  the  general 
agricultural  committee  of  the  house  of  representatives  of  Georgia,  and  can  assure 
you  that  we  have  secured  the  passage  of  a  State  law  which  gives  satisfaction  and 
ample  protection  to  the  dairymen  of  Georgia,  so  far  as  the  future  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine is  concerned. 

I  am  exceedingly  anxious  for  the  rapid  development  of  the  dairying  industry  in 
Georgia,  but  I  do  not  want  it  fostered  and  protected  by  the  passage  of  unjust  laws, 
which  will  be  detrimental  to  the  future  of  other  highly  valuable  and  equally  impor- 
tant agricultural  products. 

1  trust  that  your  committee  will  give  to  the  provisions  of  the  Grout  bill  most 
careful  and  thorough  consideration,  and  that  your  final  judgment  will  be  based  upon 
a  fair  and  just  solution  of  the  questions  involved  in  that  bill,  which  I  feel  assured  is 
the  earnest  desire  of  every  Senator  who  has  the  honor  of  representing  the  American 
people  in  the  highest  branch  of  their  National  Legislature. 

With  highest  respect,  I  beg  to  remain,  gentlemen, 

Yours,  truly,  HARVIE  JORDAN. 

Senator  MONEY.  Who  is  the  writer  of  that  letter  ? 

Mr.  PETERS.  Harvie  Jordan.  He  is  the  president  of  the  Georgia 
Cotton  Growers'  Protective  Association,  and  chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Agriculture  of  the  Georgia  senate. 

Gentlemen,  I  thank  you  very  kindly  for  allowing  me  to  be  heard. 

CONTINUATION  OF  STATEMENT  OF  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  was  stated  by  Senator  Allen  that  probably  I  would 
want  to  answer  something  that  the  gentleman  preceding  me  has  said 
In  regard  to  cotton-seed  oil. 

From  his  figures  I  gather  that  the  value  of  the  cotton  production  of 
this  country  is  $475,000,000.  From  figures  presented  by  other  people 
here,  I  take  it  that  the  value  of  the  cotton-seed-oil  industry  is 
$50,000,000,  making  a  total  of  $525,000,000.  Of  those  $525,000,000  in 
value  of  the  cotton  and  cotton-oil  product,  the  oleomargarine  people  of 
this  country  use  less  than  one-half  of  $1,000,000  worth.  The  amount  of 
cotton- seed  oil  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  this  coun- 
try, in  proportion  to  the  product  of  oleomargarine,  basing  it  upon  the 
figures  of  the  cotton-seed-oil  people  themselves,  is  about  two-thirds  of 
1  per  cent.  So  that  we  can  not  see,  gentlemen,  any  great  harm  that 


488  OLEOMARGARINE. 

can  accrue  to  the  manufacturers  of  cotton-seed  oil  as  a  result  of  this 
legislation,  even  if  it  would  (as  they  claim)  crush  out  the  industry 
entirely,  which  we  deny. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  would  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Culbertson,  representing  the  Paris  Cotton 
Oil  Company,  of  Paris,  Tex.  That  statement  was  to  the  effect  that 
-the  amount  of  oil  made  for  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  was  25 
per  cent  of  the  total  amount  of  oil  made. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  know  what  Mr.  Culbertson  said;  but  I  do 
know  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  reported  that  in  the 
83,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargine  made  in  this  country  last  year  there 
were  less  than  9,000,000  pounds  of  cotton-seed  oil.  I  can  not  give  you 
in  pounds  the  amount  of  cotton- seed  oil  produced;  I  am  only  giving  it 
in  dollars,  as  shown  by  this  report,  which  does  not  give  it  in  pounds. 
So  that  that  statement  will  hardly  stand  the  test  of  reason,  when  it  is 
seen  that  the  value  of  all  of  the  cotton-seed  oil  is  $50,000,000  yearly, 
and  there  is  only  $500,000  worth  used  in  the  oleomargarine  made  in  this 
country,  and  25  per  cent  of  the  $50,000,000  would  be  $12,500,000. 

Mr.  MILLER.  You  are  not  taking  into  consideration  the  amount 
exported. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  we  make  into  oleomargarine  in  this  country  the 
cotton-seed  oil  that  is  exported  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  What  would  be  the  effect  upon  the  export  trade  if  you 
should  place  a  ban  on  the  oil  used  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  speak  in  connection  with  this  matter  of 
"placing  a  ban"  on  the  oil  in  this  country.  When  this  bill  was  up  for 
consideration  in  1886,  the  cry  was,  "If  you  place  a  2-ceiit  stamp  on 
oleomargarine,  you  will  place  a  ban  on  the  article,  so  that  nobody  in  the 
United  States  will  use  it."  But  the  minute  the  tax  was  placed  on  oleo- 
margarine, its  manufacturers  began  to  call  it  an  indorsement  by  the 
Government  of  oleomargarine ;  and  the  matter  has  been  carried  into 
the  courts,  and  it  has  been  claimed  that  this  taxation  gave  the  Govern- 
ment's stamp  of  approval  to  oleomargarine. 

Now,  if  2  cents  a  pound  tax  will  give  you  the  Government's  stamp  of 
approval,  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  will  give  you  five  times  that  much 
approval.  [Laughter.] 

Senator  MONEY.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question :  Do  you  want  to  repress 
or  destroy  the  manufacture  of  colored  oleomargarine  in  this  country  ? 
Is  that  your  wish  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Why,  I  think  it  has  been  demonstrated  here,  Senator, 
that  white  oleomargarine  can  be  sold.  I  know  very  well  that  if  its 
manufacturers  want  to  build  up  a  trade  in  white  oleomargarine,  they 
can  do  it. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  would  like  to  have  you  answer  my  question. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir.     . 

Senator  MONEY.  I  think  we  should  have  a  candid  talk  about  this 
matter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes. 

Senator  MONEY.  Do  you  wish  to  diminish  the  oleomargarine  produc- 
tion, or  not?  Do  you  want  to  injure  it,  or  do  you  want  to  suppress  it, 
or  do  you  want  to  get  it  out  of  the  way  as  a  competitor? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  We  do  not  want  to  compete  with  oleomargarine,  col- 
ored so  closely  to  resemble  butter  that  the  people  can  not  have  a  choice 
between  it  and  genuine  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  Then  is  your  idea  that  by  taxing  it  10  cents  a 
pound  you  will  get  rid  of  a  competitor?  Is  that  it? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  489 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  think  we  will  get  rid  of  the  incentive  of  people  to  use 
that  product  to  defraud  the  public. 

Senator  MONEY.  Now,  without  using  any  roundabout  expressions  at 
all,  you  want  to  get  rid  of  a  competitor,  do  you;  and  you  want  to  get 
rid  of  it  by  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound.? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  We  want  to  get  rid  of  a  fraud,  Senator. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  am  not  talking  about  fraud.  We  disagree  on  that 
subject,  you  know;  for  I  think  there  is  as  much  fraud  in  your  business 
as  there  is  in  ours. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  is  fraud  in  every  business. 

Senator  MONEY.  Nevertheless  we  have  had  testimony  here  to  show 
that  you  take  rancid  and  sour  butter,  and  paddle  it  up,  and  put  chem- 
icals in  it,  and  sell  it  for  butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  we  have  also  had  testimony,  Senator,  to  the  effect 
that  these  oleomargarine  people  want  to  color  their  butter  in  imitation 
of  that  "rancid  stuff." 

Senator  MONEY.  All  right.  That  is  another  matter.  Now,  you  want 
to  get  rid  of  this  industry  whether  it  is  a  fraud  or  not;  and  that  is  the 
object  of  this  measure,  is  it  not — to  get  rid  of  oleomargarine  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  see  how  I  can  explain  to  you  my  views 

Senator  MONEY.  You  can  explain. them  by  answering  the  question. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Do  you  want  to  get  rid  of  it  if  it  is  not  a  fraud? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  We  want  to  get  rid  of  the  fraudulent  competition. 

Senator  FOSTER.  The  illegitimate  competition? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  illegitimate  competition. 

Senator  MONEY.  And  in  order  to  do  that,  you  want  to  tax  the  whole 
production  10  per  cent? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No,  indeed,  we  do  not. 

Senator  MONEY.  Is  not  that  the  proposition? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No,  sir;  the  Grout  bill  only  taxes  that  which  is  colored. 

The  Acting  CHAIRMAN.  Will  there  be  any  tax  on  the  pure  uncolored 
oleomargarine  under  this  bill,  as  you  understand  it? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  will  be  a  quarter  of  a  cent  tax,  Senator,  for  this 
reason.  The  idea  of  putting  a  quarter  of  a  cent  tax  on  the  uncolored 
article  is  to  place  it  within  Government  restrictions,  so  that  when  a 
man  puts  up  a  factory  he  will  be  located  by  this  tax  and  the  Govern- 
ment can  keep  its  eye  on  him. 

The  Acting  CHAIRMAN.  I  mean  apart  from  that.  That  is  a  mere 
bagatelle.  Do  you  want  any  substantial  tax  upon  the  uncolored 
oleomargarine? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  no;  no,  indeed. 

Senator  MONEY.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  this  question:  Are  you 
willing  to  insert  in  this  bill  a  provision  that  no  dairyman  shall  color  his 
butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No,  indeed ;  we  are  not. 

Senator  MONEY.  No ;  but  you  are  willing  that  the  manufacturer  of 
process  butter  shall  be  restricted  there,  are  you  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No ;  now,  1  will  explain  that.  That  has  been  brought 
up  here  several  times. 

Senator  MONEY.  Excuse  me;  I  would  prefer  to  have  you  answer  my 
question. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  can  not  answer  it,  sir,  yes  or  no;  because  I  have  got 
to  explain  to  you  that  renovated  butter  is  made  out  of  butter  which  is 
already  colored,  either  by  nature  or  by  the  farmer  artificially.  The 
manufacturer  of  renovated  butter,  in  choosing  his  stock,  has  no  choice 
at  all  in  this  particular  matter.  He  could  not  be  compelled  to  make 


490  OLEOMARGARINE. 

his  butter  uncolored.  He  gets  yellow  butter  that  is  as  yellow  as  any 
butter  that  you  have  ever  seen — which  has  absolutely  no  artificial  col- 
oring matter  in  it.  That  is  one  grade  that  he  gets.  Now,  you  can  not 
make  him  make  that  butter  white.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  within  the 
province  and  jurisdiction  of  the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  to  make 
his  product  of  one  color  the  year  round. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  do  not  object  to  the  oleomargarine  manufac- 
turer coloring  his  product  red,  then,  when  he  sends  it  down  to  the 
West  Indies  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  he  can  color  it  red,  just  like  currant  jelly,  and  it 
can  be  put  on  bread  just  as  people  use  currant  jelly  on  their  bread. 
We  will  not  object  to  that  at  all. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  only  object  to  it  when  it  is  colored  in  competi- 
tion with  your  product. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  it  exactly. 

Senator  MONEY.  In  other  words,  you  want  something  done  by  the 
United  States  Government  which  will  put  money  in  your  pockets  at 
the  expense  of  some  other  person  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No  j  we  do  not.  But  we  want  our  pockets  locked  up 
against  the  plunder  of  other  people. 

Senator  MONEY.  Nobody  is  taking  anything  out  of  your  pockets. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  no ! 

Senator  MONEY.  Now,  here  is  another  thing:  Suppose  I  were  to 
introduce  a  bill,  let  us  say,  placing  a  tax  upon  butter  of  20  cents  a 
pound. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes. 

Senator  MONEY.  And  suppose  that  bill  forbade  the  coloring  of  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes. 

Senator  MONEY.  And  suppose  I  taxed  oleomargarine  10  cents  a 
pound,  as  you  propose  to  do  in  this  bill. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes. 

Senator  MONEY.  In  other  words,  suppose  I  proposed  to  crush  you 
both  out  of  business  in  order  that  the  people  might  be  compelled  to 
use  a  product  of  cotton-seed  oil.  What  would  you  think  of  that? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  think  it  would  not  pass.     (Laughter.) 

Senator  MONEY.  I  am  not  talking  about  whether  it  would  pass  or 
not.  I  do  not  want  your  opinion  about  that.  I  have  my  own  opinion 
on  that  question.  But  what  about  the  morality  of  it,  and  the  consti- 
tutionality of  it,  and  the  justice  of  ilj? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But,  Senator,  you  can  not  claim  that  either  of  those 
products  are  imitating  your  product. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  makes  no  difference. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  our  whole  claim  here.  The  best  part  of  our 
whole  claim  is  that  this  other  product  is  a  fraudulent  imitation  of  ours, 
and  that  oleomargarine  is  being  used  to  displace  our  product  illegiti- 
mately and  fraudulently. 

Senator  MONEY.  Does  not  the  first  provision  of  the  act  sufficiently 
provide  against  that?  Now,  as  I  understand  it — excuse  me  for  arguing 
with  you. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  all  right ;  I  am  very  glad  to  have  you. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  am  trying  to  get  at  the  facts  of  this  matter.  I 
have  only  been  here  during  a  part  of  the  hearings,  because  I  have  had 
to  be  in  other  places.  But  in  the  first  place,  it  seems  to  be  conceded 
that  the  manufacturer  himself  does  not  deceive  anybody. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  no ! 

Senator  MONEY.  He  sells  his  product  as  oleomargarine ;  he  never 
pretends  to  sell  it  as  butter.  Is  that  so  1 


OLEOMARGABINE.  491 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  tell  you.  I  have  two  cases  right  here  to  which  I 
can  refer  you,  which  bear  on  that  subject.  I  will  tell  you  the  trouble 
about  that,  Senator.  Whenever  that  is  done,  it  is  done  in  such  a  way 
that  we  can  not  get  evidence  against  those  manufacturers  to  connect 
them  with  the  fraud.  But  if  you  will  permit  me  to  do  so,  I  will  give 
you  a  little  incident  here  which  I  think  will  convince  you  that  possibly 
the  manufacturers  are  pretty  well  in  sympathy  with  those  who  do  pass 
off  oleomargarine  as  butter.  That  is  as  close  as  we  can  get  to  it. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  does  not  meet  the  point  at  all. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  meets  it  as  nearly  as  we  can  meet  it. 

Senator  MONEY.  Then  you  fail  to  meet  that  point.    The  next  is — 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  what  point  is  it  you  want  me  to  meet,  Senator? 

Senator  MONEY.  I  want  to  know  where  there  is  any  fraud. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  and  I  will  show  you  right  here.  I  did  not  want 
to  be  forced  to  do  this,  but  I  am — 

Senator  MONEY.  Oh,  yes ;  let  us  hear  the  whole  truth.  Do  not  hold 
anything  back. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  simply  did  not  want  to  be  personal  in  this  matter, 
and  for  that  reason  I  have  left  out  a  great  many  things  that  might 
have  been  said. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  can  suppress  names  if  you  do  not  want  to  be 
personal. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  hold  in  my  hand  here  an  answer  to  a  complaint  which 
was  made  by  the  collector  of  internal  revenue  for  the  first  district  of 
Illinois  against  the  largest  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  in  the  State, 
in  which  they  were  accused,  in  twenty  counts,  of  fraudulent  entry — 
that  is  to  say,  of  having  sent  to  the  collector's  office  wrong  or  fictitious 
names  of  people  who  bought  oleomargarine.  What  was  that  com- 
plaint for?  It  was  for  what  is  known  as  "  covering  up  "  dealers. 

For  instance,  suppose  I  am  a  manufacturer  and  you  are  a  licensed 
dealer.  By  law  I  am  compelled  to  report  every  pound  of  oleomargarine 
I  sell  to  you  and  your  post-office  address.  The  object  of  that  require- 
ment is  to  enable  the  Government  to  go  to  you  and  see  that  you  have 
the  necessary  license  to  sell  it,  and  have  paid  your  tax  to  sell  it. 
Here  comes  a  man  who  wants  to  sell  oleomargarine  for  butter,  we  will 
say,  or  who  does  not  want  the  Government  to  trace  him  out  and  put  a 
tax  on  him,  so  that  he  will  be  identified,  and  so  that  any  person  can  go 
to  the  office  and  find  out  that  he  is  a  dealer  and  watch  him. 

Senator  FOSTER.  It  is  a  species  of  green  goods,  is  it? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  that  is  it.  Now,  instead  of  his  billing  the  goods 
to  the  man  he  wants  to  cover  up  he  bills  them  to  you.  You  are  none 
the  wiser,  because  those  reports  are  confidential.  And  this  particular 
matter  was  brought  out  in  this  way,  as  I  understand  it :  In  the  city 
of  Aurora,  111.,  there  was  a  company  formed,  known  as  the  Aurora 
Produce  Company.  That  Aurora  Produce  Company,  as  nearly  as  the 
internal-revenue  collector  has  been  able  to  find  out,  sent  out  broadcast 
through  the  country  $140,000  worth  of  oleomargarine,  with  the  stamps 
scratched  off,  as  and  for  butter.  That  oleomargarine  was  sold  as  butter 
in  New  York  State.  The  company  sold  it  by  the  carload.  They  sold  it 
to  one  man  in  Buffalo,  N.  Y.  The  food  commissioner  became  aware  of 
it,  and  it  cost  that  man  $1,800  in  fines  for  buying  something  innocently, 
which  he  supposed  to  be  butter,  because  it  was  colored  and  he  could 
not  tell  the  difference,  as  it  came  there  in  tubs.  Another  man,  up  in 
Milwaukee,  had  to  go  up  and  pay  a  $480  internal-revenue  license  as  a 
wholesaler,  because  he  got  hold  of  some  of  that  oleomargarine,  thinking 
it  was  butter,  and  bought  it  innocently,  and  sold  it  as  butter.  But  the 


492  OLEOMARGARINE. 

internal-revenue  collector  went  after  him,  with  the  result  I  have  stated. 
I  do  not  know  how  many  more  men  were  traced  in  that  way. 

When  the  man  who  was  the  head  of  this  concern  was  arrested,  it  was 
not  through  the  activity  of  the  internal-revenue  office,  but  through  the 
department  of  agriculture  of  New  York,  which  sent  detectives  to  Chi- 
cago, tracked  him  down,  got  evidence  against  him,  and  turned  him  over 
to  the  internal-revenue  collector.  When  he  was  arrested  two  of  his 
people  fled  the  country  and  got  into  Canada,  and  one  of  them,  before 
he  went,  burned  his  books,  and  permitted  nobody  to  see  anything 
about  his  transactions.  The  people  were  absolutely  irresponsible,  and 
yet  they  had  done  a  business  of  $140,000  within  a  few  months. 

When  this  man  was  arraigned  before  Commissioner  Mason  (who,  by 
the  way,  is  Senator  Mason's  son)  the  leading  oleomargarine  manufac- 
turers of  the  city  of  Chicago  came  and  put  up  bail  for  him,  and  kept 
him  from  going  to  jail.  I  can  not  say  that  they  furnished  counsel  for 
that  man,  for  you  can  not  find  out  from  their  check  books  who  they  pay 
money  to  for  such  purposes.  But  the  point  I  was  coming  to  was  that 
this  thing  started  an  investigation  (commenced,  as  I  understand  it,  by 
the  Internal  Eevenue  Department)  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  where 
these  goods  were  being  shipped  by  the  manufacturers,  so  that  they 
could  uget  on  to  them/7  and  that  investigation  led  to  the  locating  of 
some  twenty  places  where  oleomargarine  had  been  shipped  by  the 
manufacturers,  without  making  the  proper  report. 

When  that  matter  was  brought  up,  and  this  man  was  arrested  and 
put  under  bail,  an  offer  of  $7,500  was  made  as  a  compromise  for  his 
case  and  the  twenty  cases  brought  against  this  firm  for  fraud.  That 
offer  was  rejected.  The  man  who  was  caught  in  the  act  of  distributing 
this  oleomargarine  was  fined  $1,000.  He  got  off.  Two  of  his  other 
people  are  over  in  Canada  to-day,  waiting  for  an  opportunity  to  either 
come  home  and  be  cleared  by  the  people  who  are  back  of  them  or  to 
turn  State's  evidence. 

This  concern,  in  order  to  clear  up  this  matter,  offered  $7,500  to  the 
Internal  Revenue  Department.  The  Internal  Revenue  Department 
recommended  the  acceptance  of  that  offer.  The  collector  at  Chicago 
recommended  the  acceptance  of  the  offer.  The  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Eevenue  at  Washington  recommended  its  acceptance,  but  Attorney- 
General  Griggs  sat  down  on  it.  He  said:  "  No;  we  will  try  these  peo- 
ple, and  go  to  the  bottom  of  the  matter." 

What  is  the  condition  to-day?  In  order  to  find  out  what  this  firm 
was  doing  in  the  way  of  sending  out  these  goods  surreptitiously,  with- 
out returning  the  proper  names,  the  collector  of  internal  revenue  (as 
the  law  gave  him  a  right  to  do,  as  he  supposed),  demanded  the  private 
books  of  this  concern,  alleging  in  his  complaint  that  they  had  reported 
fraudulently  to  him,  and  had  not  given  him  the  correct  report  according 
to  law. 

The  firm  refused  to  give  up  the  books.  They  set  up  the  plea  that  the 
Government  had  no  right  to  the  books.  The  Government  insisted. 
The  collector  insisted  that  he  had  the  right,  and  he  went  before  Judge 
Kohlsaat  and  asked'for  an  order  for  contempt  to  bring  them  into  court 
and  compel  them  to  give  up  the  books.  They  came  into  court  and  made 
the  plea  that  they  had  given  everything  the  Government  required,  and 
that  the  Government  had  no  right  to  go  into  their  private  books  further 
than  what  they  had  submitted. 

The  judge — I  think  it  was  Judge  Kohlsaat,  or  else  the  other  Federal 
judge  there,  Judge  Grosscup — ruled  that  their  plea  was  not  sufficient, 
and  that  they  must  bring  those  books  into  court,  under  the  order  of 


OLEOMARGARINE.  493 

i 

the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Eevenue.  Here  is  the  reply,  the  amended 
answer,  of  the  concern;  and  I  am  not  going  to  read  names,  gentlemen, 
because  I  do  not  want  to  do  that.  This  is  the  plea  which,  they  set  up, 
and  which  the  judge  finally  said  excused  them  from  revealing  the 
secrets  of  their  business  so  far  as  the  Government  had  required, 
although  they  had  practically  agreed  when  they  went  into  business  to 
comply  with  the  Government's  requirements  in  that  respect: 

That  the  allegation  of  the  collector  that  the  returns  made  by  said  Braun  &  Fitts 
are  false  and  fraudulent  in  that  they  did  not,  as  said  collector  alleges,  truthfully 
state  the  name  and  place  of  residence  of  each  person  to  whom  goods  were  sold  or 
consigned,  and  the  allegation  of  the  collector  that  such  charge  would  be  sustained 
by  an  examination  of  the  books  for  which  said  collector  asks  of  this  court  an  order 
for  their  production,  would,  if  the  order  prayed  for  be  granted,  compel  your  respond- 
ents to  furnish,  by  their  said  books  so  ordered  to  be  produced,  evidence  that  might 
and  would  tend  to  criminate  them  and  each  of  them ;  that  these  respondents  and 
each  of  them  hereby  personally  expressly  claim  the  privilege  and  right  guaranteed 
to  them  by  the  fifth' amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  object 
to  the  order  sought  for  in  said  petition,  or  any  part  thereof,  on  the  ground  that  such 
order  if  granted  would  compel  these  respondents,  and  each  of  them,  to  give  and 
furnish  testimony  that  would  tend  to  criminate  them  and  each  of  them. 

Now,  let  me  show  you  another  case.  These  people  have  said  a  good 
deal  to  your  committee  down  here  about  the  inspection  of  the  Internal 
Eevenue  Department,  and  about  how  they  are  compelled  to  report 
every  ingredient,  and  that  they  are  compelled  to  do  this,  that,  and  the 
other. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  present  oleomargarine  law  can  not  compel 
them  to  do  anything  that  they  do  not  want  to  do.  All  that  they  need 
do  is  to  hide  behind  their  constitutional  right,  and  claim  that  the  evi- 
dence called  for  will  incriminate  them. 

Here  is  a  case  which  is  entitled  uln  re  Kinney,  collector  of  internal- 
revenue.''  The  heading  is  "  Examination  of  books." 

W.  F.  Kinney,  collector  of  internal  revenue,  district  of  Connecticut,  issued  a  sum- 
mons, under  section  3173,  Revised  Statutes,  against  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing 
Company,  a  corporation  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine.  The  parties 
refused  to  comply  with  the  summons,  and  the  collector  petitioned  the  United  States 
district  judge  for  an  attachment  against  F.  M.  Mathewson,  president  of  the  com- 
pany, directed  to  the  United  States  marshal  of  the  district,  commanding  him  to 
arrest  said  Frank  M.  Mathewson  and  bring  him  before  the  judge  .to  show  cause  why 
he  should  not  be  adjudged  in  contempt  and  punished  according  to  law,  as  provided 
by  section  3175,  Revised  Statutes. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  said  that  this  talk  about  these  people 
being  compelled  to  make  a  return  of  the  materials  and  products  is  all 
bosh.  They  can  not  be  made  to  do  it  if  they  do  not  want  to.  They 
make  the  return  if  they  wish,  and  if  they  do  not  wish  they  will  not  do 
it,  and  they  do  not  have  to,  according  to  this  decision. 

The  decision  of  the  judge  was  adverse  to  the  collector.  He  held 
that — 

The  provisions  of  Revised  Statutes,  section  3173,  authorizing  a  collector  of 
internal  revenue  to  summon  before  him  for  examination  any  person  charged  by  the 
law  with  the  duty  of  making  returns  of  objects  subject  to  tax,  do  not  apply  to  per- 
sons required  under  the  oleomargarine  law  to  make  returns  of  materials  and  products. 
Such  provisions  relate  only  to  objects  of  taxation  uponwhici  the  tax  is  collected  by 
the  method  of  return  and  assessment,  and  not  to  those  upon  which  the  taxis  required 
to  be  paid  by  a  stamp ;  and  a  collector  has  no  power  under  section  3173  to  compel  a 
person  to  appear  and  testify  to  the  correctness  of  the  returns  made  under  the  oleo- 
margarine law.  (102  Fed.  Rep.,  468.) 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question.  I  do  not  want 
to  unnecessarily  interrupt  you;  but  do  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
some  Federal  judge  or  court  judge  held  this  answer  which  you  read  a 
moment  ago  sufficient  in  response  to  a  writ  of  attachment  for  contempt? 


494  OLEOMARGARINE 

t 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  he  did. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Without  himself  proceeding  to  examine  the 
evidence,  and  to  determine  from  the  evidence  itself  whether  it  was 
incriminating  or  not? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  He  did,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  will  say  that  the  collector 
has  taken  an  appeal  in  the  case ;  but  it  is  not  known  whether  the  appeal 
will  stand  or  not  under  the  circumstances. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  should  think  it  ought  to  stand. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  matter  is  now  up  in  the  courts. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  suppose  you  understand  that  the  rule  in 
such  a  case  is  that  the  judge  himself  must  examine  the  evidence  and 
determine  from  such  examination  whether  it  is  incriminating  or  not. 
It  is  not  left  to  the  witness  to  determine  that. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  witness,  in  this  case,  made  this  affidavit. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  that  is  his  own  determination. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  understand  that  from  that  affidavit  the  judge  decided 
that  there  was  no  further  cause  of  action. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Any  man  living  who  is  competent  to  draft 
an  answer  in  reponse  to  a  writ  of  attachment  for  contempt  may  excul- 
pate himself  if  the  judge  can  not  go  any  further  and  examine  the  evi- 
dence said  to  be  incriminating. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  was  a  Federal  judge,  was  it? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  was  a  Federal  judge. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Such  a  decision  makes  the  witness  instead 
of  the  court  the  judge  of  the  matter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  true.  This  matter  was  before  the  Hon.  Chris- 
tian C.  Kohlsatt,  judge  of  the  United  States  court  of  America  for  the 
northern  district  of  Illinois.  That  is  my  understanding  of  the  case,  at 
least — that  the  judge  did  not  examine  the  evidence  at  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  first  exception  to  the  rule  of 
which  I  have  ever  known. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  you  wanted  to  know  something  about  the  manu- 
facturers, Senator.  That  is  one  case. 

Senator  MONEY.  Now,  you  have  undertaken  to  give  circumstances  to 
prove  a  case  against  two  manufacturers.  Do  you  consider  that  that  is 
the  rule  or  the  exception  1 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  These  two  manufacturers,  Senator,  make  25  per  cent  of 
all  the  oleomargarine  produced  in  the  United  States. 

Senator  MONEY.  They  do? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  do;  yes,  sir.  I  know  that  to  be  a  fact,  as  I  have 
seen  the  records  of  the  Department,  which  show  the  amount  manu- 
factured by  those  two  concerns. 

Mr.  MILLER.  What  is  your  experience  with  the  packers  who  manu- 
facture butterine  f 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  My  experience  with  your  concern,  Mr.  Miller,  is  that  if 
they  were  all  like  you  we  would  never  be  here.  Unfortunately,  they 
are  not. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  the  committee  will  permit,  I  would  like  at  this  point 
to  read  a  telegram  from  Collector  Coyne,  received  last  night.  State- 
ments have  been  made  here  before  this  committee  as  if  it  were  a  court 
of  trial.  There  are  always  two  sides  to  a  question.  I  do  not  care  to  go 
into  a  discussion  of  detail,  but  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  Internal 
Eevenue  Department  ought  to  be  called  on  to  substantiate  everything 
which  has  been  offered  before  this  committee.  I  would  suggest,  there- 
fore, that  the  Internal  Kevenue  Department  be  asked  to  come  here  and 
present  their  side  of  this  question. 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  495 

This  telegram  from  Mr.  F.  E.  Coyne,  collector  of  the  first  district  of 
Illinois,  Chicago,  speaks  for  itself.  I  did  not  care  to  bring  it  up,  but 
Mr.  Knight  yesterday  made  some  personal  allusions  which  were  entirely 
uncalled  for,  I  think.  (Beading:) 

I  have  ceased  to  pay  any  attention  to  rash  statements  of  Charles  Y.  Knight,  except 
to  request  him  to  report  violations  of  the  oleomargarine  law  to  my  office  or  the 
United  States  district  attorney.  As  he  has  made  no  such  report,  I  take  it  for 
granted  he  has  no  evidence,  or  he  is  withholding  valuable  information  from  the 
United  States  Government.  F.  E.  Coyne,  collector. 

Mr.'KNiGrHT.  Gentlemen,  I  have  an  answer  to  that  right  here,  and  I 
am  very  glad  this  point  has  been  brought  out.  Mr.  Coyne  made  just 
exactly  that  kind  of  a  statement  when  I  was  before  the  Agricultural 
Committee  of  the  House.  I  went  home  to  Chicago;  I  went  to  the  office 
of  the  Chicago  Becord,  told  them  the  situation,  showed  them  what  Mr. 
Coyne  had  said,  and  asked  them  to  come  out  with  me.  Accordingly, 
Beporter  Hackett  was  assigned  the  duty,  and  with  me  proceeded  to 
the  store  of  William  Broad  well,  which  was  just  across  the  street  from 
the  Becord  office.  He  went  in  and  asked  for  a  pound  of  the  best 
creamery  butter,  for  which  he  was  charged  25  cents.  When  he  came 
out  the  package  was  examined,  and  turned  under  the  corner,  ingeni- 
ously folded  to  defy  detection  by  the  unwary,  was  the  oleomargarine 
stamp.  A  half  block  down  another  store  was  visited,  the  Ohio  Butter 
Company,  and  best  creamery  butter  called  for  here.  It  was  sold  for  20 
cents  at  this  place,  and  the  package  was  wrapped  in  a  purple  paper 
with  the  oleomargarine  stamp  stamped  thereon  in  purple  ink,  which 
was  detected  only  after  a  careful  search  for  some  minutes  to  locate  the 
outlines.  Still  another  store,  that  of  Hughes  &  Schlick,  was  visited  in 
the  same  block,  where  22  cents  was  charged  for  "  best  creamery  butter," 
the  stamp  on  this  occasion  being  concealed  by  turning  the  paper  over  the 
end  of  the  roll.  Mr.  Hackett  went  straight  to  the  office  of  Collector 
Coyne,  informed  him  that  he  had  personally  purchased  these  packages 
as  creamery  butter,  and  exhibited  the  internal-revenue  rulings  which 
such  practices  violated.  In  the  issue  of  Saturday,  March  17,  the 
Becord  published  the  following  interview  with  Mr.  Coyne,  which  cor- 
roborates the  statements  frequently  made  by  the  collector  of  Chicago 
to  me. 

Now,  this  is  the  statement  which  Mr.  Coyne  gave  the  newspaper 
reporter  right  there.  I  will  say,  in  this  connection,  that  Mr.  Hackett 
took  these  packages  right  up  and  asked  Mr.  Coyne  how  it  was  that 
within  a  few  blocks  of  his  office  these  violations  could  have  been  going 
on  for  years,  as  was  reported  down  at  Washington.  I  read  the 
interview : 

Internal  Revenue  Collector  Coyne's  attention  was  called  to  these  violations  of 
the  law  yesterday  and  the  wrappers  exhibited.  He  said : 

"I  am  always  willing  to  prosecute  violators  of  the  revenue  laws,  and  I  am  glad 
to  have  these  cases  called  to  my  attention.  It  is  unfortunate  that  I  have  to  depend 
on  the  public  for  my  information,  however.  I  have  nineteen  counties,  including 
Cook,  to  look  after,  and  the  fifteen  deputies  I  am  allowed  have  about  2,000  special 
taxpayers  in  their  respective  districts.  These  include  breweries,  saloons,  cigar 
dealers  and  manufacturers,  oleomargarine  makers  and  dealers,  and  many  others. 
The  force  is  not  large  enough  for  me  to  watch  every  retailer— «2, 000  men  would  be 
required  to  do  that." 

The  collector  of  internal  revenue  told  me  personally  that  that  was 
one  of  his  excuses  for  not  enforcing  that  law — that  it  would  take  one 
man  to  every  retailer  to  see  that  it  was  enforced.  (Beading:) 

"Nor  can  the  deputies  make  cases  by  purchasing  butter  or  its  substitute,  for  they 
have  no  fund  for  that. 

"  Whenever  a  citizen  comes  to  me  and  tells  me  of  a  case  of  this  kind  I  am  always 
willing  to  do  my  duty  as  the  law  sets  it  forth.  I  have  been  accused  by  both  sides  of 


496  OLEOMAKGAKITSTE. 

leaning  toward  the  other,  but  neither  party  is  right  in  making  these  charges.  If 
I  ain  called  before  the  agricultural  committee,  I  shall  be  glad  to  tell  what  I  know, 
and  that  is  more  than  I  can  tell  the  public  in  my  present  position.  The  books  of 
this  department  are  not  open  to  the  people,  but  I  can  assure  you  that  many  violators 
of  the  oleomargarine  laws  have  suffered." 

Now,  I  want  to  say  in  this  connection  that  I  have  worn  the  soles  off 
my  shoes  going  up  to  that  collector's  office  and  giving  him  evidence  of 
violations  of  the  internal-revenue  laws.  And  I  will  give  you  a  c^se 
which  we  took  to  the  supreme  court  there  on  mandamus.  I  have  it 
right  here. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  think  Mr.  Coyne  ought  to  have  an  opportunity  to  be 
heard  in  self-defense. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  1  have  no  doubt  that  a  good  many  people  would  like  to 
be  heard  here,  and  it  would  prolong  this  hearing  until  after  the  4th  of 
March;  but  I  will  give  you  the  facts  right  here,  and  then  if  Mr.  Coyne 
wants  to  make  a  statement,  all  right. 

M.  A.  Wright,  a  retail  dealerin  oleomargarine,  sold  to  myself,  in  the 
presence  of  another  witness,  a  wholesale  lot  of  oleomargarine  as  butter. 
Now,  in  selling  that  oleomargarine  to  me  as  butter,  he  did  not  violate 
any  internal-revenue  law,  because  the  internal-revenue  people  do  not 
care  whether  it  is  sold  as  butter  or  not,  so  long  as  it  is  stamped.  He 
sold  me  two  10-pound  pails.  A  retail  dealer  there  is  not  permitted  to 
sell  over  10  pounds  at  a  sale,  with  a  retail  license  for  which  he  pays  $40 
a  year.  He  must  take  out  a  license,  for  which  he  pays  $480  a  year,  in 
order  to  be  able  to  sell  more  than  1 0  pounds  at  a  time. 

These  pails  were  stamped  faintly  on  the  bottom,  as  was  the  case  with 
many  of  these  packages  I  have  shown,  the  marks  being  concealed. 

I  took  that  evidence,  and  had  a  chemical  analysis  made  by  Mr.  Dela- 
fontaine,  one  of  the  leading  chemists  of  Chicago — a  chemist  of  forty 
years'  experience.  I  took  that  chemical  analysis  to  Coyne,  offered  him 
the  evidence  in  the  case,  sealed  the  packages  up,  and  put  them  away 
for  him.  Gentlemen,  that  was  in  September,  1899.  I  have  never  been 
called  on  for  that  evidence  yet;  and  yet  there  was  an  opportunity  for 
him  to  make  a  case  against  this  man. 

There  is  one  specific  case.  Then  we  proceeded  against  this  man  in 
the  justice  court,  and  tried  to  do  something  with  him;  but  there  is  one 
specific  case  in  which  I  offered  that  man  evidence  which  was  absolutely 
indisputable,  and  absolutely  no  attention  whatever  was  paid  to  it.  Fur- 
ther than  that,  we  have  been  told,  when  we  go  into  that  internal-revenue 
collector's  office,  that  the  more  oleomargarine  there  is  sold,  the  more 
revenue  the  Government  gets,  and  the  higher  class  the  internal-revenue 
officers  are. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Now,  Mr.  Knight,  while  all  this  is  very  inter- 
esting, I  doubt  the  propriety  of  making  an  attack  upon  an  officer  of  the 
United  States,  of  a  character  which  would  tend  to  prolong  this  inves- 
tigation. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  true;  but  I  had  to  do  that,  Senator,  in  answer 
to  the  telegram  which  was  introduced  here. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  But  I  would  suggest  to  the  committee  the  query 
whether  this  whole  matter  is  not  somewhat  immaterial  to  the  question 
before  us  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  would  like  to  be  able  to  state  this,  Senator,  that  the 
refusal  of  the  internal-revenue  collector  of  the  city  of  Chicago  to 
enforce  these  laws,  and  my  continued  hammering  at  him  to  do  it,  has 
made  him  very  sore  toward  me,  and  that  fact  is  exhibited  in  this  tele- 
gram. There  is  no  other  reason  in  the  world  why  he  should  feel  that 
way. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  497 

Senator  MONEY.  You  would  not  have  any  objection  to  his  coming 
here  and  making  a  statement  in  his  own  behalf,  would  you? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  would  have  a  great  deal  of  objection  to  prolonging 
these  hearings  any  further,  if  I  had  anything  to  say  about  it. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  another  matter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  certainly;  I  would  have  no  other  objection ;  no, 
indeed.  But  Mr.  Jelke's  point  about  telegraphing  to  Collector  Coyne 
was  very  poorly  taken,  because  I  did  not  mention  Collector  Coyne's 
name  in  the  matter  at  all.  When  I  stated  that  an  offer  of  $7,500  in 
compromise  was  made  by  Mr.  Jelke's  firm,  I  stated  that  my  informa- 
tion was  from  Assistant  United  States  Attorney  Clark  J.  Tisdell,  and 
not  from  the  collector  of  internal  revenue ;  and  I  think  if  you  will  go 
to  the  commissioner  of  internal  revenue  in  this  city,  or  the  courts,  or 
whatever  the  proper  place  may  be,  my  statement  can  be  verified. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Mr.  Knight,  just  permit  me  to  interrupt  you  for  a 
moment,  if  you  please.  I  did  not  take  any  notice  of  what  you  said 
yesterday  afternoon,  except  this:  I  think  if  you  will  refer  to  the 
record,  you  will  find  that  you  made  the  'statement  that  there  were  2,000 
dealers  in  Chicago  who  were  selling  oleomargarine  as  and  for  butter. 
I  think  the  record  will  show  that. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  my  opinion,  Mr.  Jelke;  and  I  do  not  know  any 
way  to  prove  it  except  to  go  out  and  sample  them,  and  get  analyses  of 
what  they  sell  you. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  you  will  investigate  the  most  respectable  and  respon- 
sible dealers  in  Chicago  you  will  find  them  handling  oleomargarine  as 
oleomargarine.  I  refer  to  the  leading  merchants  of  Chicago. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  deny  that. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Take  the  Siegel-Cooper  Company,  the  Boston  Store,  "The 
Fair,",  the  Eothschilds,  Charles  H.  Schlatt,  and  others  of  the  best  of 
them. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Let  me  state  that  if  you  investigate  some  of  the  manu- 
facturers of  oleomargarine  you  will  find  that  one  or  two  of  them  are 
not  upholding  this  kind  of  business;  but,  unfortunately,  the  majority  of 
them  are. 

.  Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  point  I  endeavored  to  make  was  this,  that 
the  more  contentious  personal  matter  there  is  introduced  here  the  more 
interminable  this  thing  will  become. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  true,  Senator,  and  I  will  endeavor  to  avoid  it. 
As  you  saw  just  now,  I  did  not  want  to  bring  any  names  into  this 
matter  at  all.  I  endeavored  to  avoid  that. 

Mr.  JELKE.  That  is  the  difficulty — class  against  class. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Now,  I  want  to  say  a  few  words  on  this  "  class-against- 
class"  question. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Oh,  I  think  the  committee  understands 
the  question  of  "  class  against  class."  We  have  heard  it  discussed 
here  time  and  time  again. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  here  is  something  that  has  not  been  brought  out, 
Senator;  and  that  is  the  fact  that  the  oleomargarine  people  to-day  are 
largely  people  who  have  been  butter  people  in  time  past.  When  oleo- 
margarine first  came  in  it  was  handled  by  butter  people*  Almost  every 
butter  man  in  the  United  States  handled  it.  What  made  thedifference 
between  oleomargarine  dealers  and  butter  dealers'?  When  the  laws 
went  into  effect  which  made  it  unlawful  and  illegal  to  handle  butterine 
in  the  only  way  that  it  would  be  honestly  sold,  a  part  of  the  dealers 
got  out  of  the  business.  Those  who  wanted  to  comply  with  the  law  got 
out  of  the  business  because  they  could  not  remain  in  it  legally.  The 

S.  Rep.  2043 32 


498  OLEOMARGARINE. 

people  who  are  now  the  oleomargarine  dealers  are  largely — I  will  not 
say  all — those  who  stayed  in  it  notwithstanding  the  laws. 

Now,  you  have  this  condition  of  affairs : 

Here  is  a  man  who  is  doing  an  honest  butter  business,  endeavoring 
to  sell  butter  in  compliance  with  the  law.  He  is  a  butter  man.  He 
could  just  as  well  sell  oleomargarine,  because  it  all  goes  to  the  same 
trade.  The  retailers  who  sell  oleomargarine  sell  butter;  and  he  could 
just  as  well  sell  oleomargarine  and  make  the  profit  on  it  that  oleomar- 
garine dealers  make  if  he  wanted  to  violate  the  law.  What  is  the  con- 
dition to  day?  He  is  asking  you,  as  a  law-abiding  citizen,  and  a  man 
who  will  not  resort  to  such  practices,  to  protect  him  against  the  man 
who  is  willing  to  take  his  chances  and  violate  the  law  in  order  to  make 
that  profit.  That  is  the  condition  which  exists  to  day,  and  that  is  the 
difference  between  the  oleomargarine  man  and  the  butter  man. 

Mr.  PETERS.  Mr.  Knight,  will  you  allow  me  to  ask  one  question? 

Mi-.  KNIGHT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  PETERS.  What  objection  would  you  have  to  having  oleomar- 
garine put  up  in  square  packages,  so  that  anybody  could  distinguish 
it  from  butter  at  a  glance  f 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  think  that  square  packages  have  anything 
to  do  with  the  distinction.  It  has  been  my  experience  that  there  is 
nothing  easier  in  the  world  than  for  a  man  to  take  ten  square  pack- 
ages of  1  pound  each,  put  them  in  a  10-pound  jar,  and  make  "butter" 
out  of  them. 

Mr.  PETERS.  That  is  not  the  question  which  I  asked.  You  have 
not  answered  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  My  objection  is  that  it  is  absolutely  no  bar  to  fraud. 
And  I  can  not  answer  the  gentleman  any  further,  because  I  do  not 
consider  that  he  is  an  expert  in  the  butter  business  and  in  the  enforce- 
ment of  laws. 

I  want  to  say  here,  gentlemen,  that  one  of  our  greatest  difficulties 
in  trying  to  do  anything  with  the  illicit  sale  of  oleomarga'rine  is  the 
fact  that  there  is  a  class  of  hucksters,  who  were  described  to  you  by 
the  gentleman  from  New  York  City  the  other  day,  who  take  this  oleo- 
margarine, take  all  the  stamps  and  wrappers  off  of  it,  put  it  in  jars, 
and  aH  kinds  of  shapes,  and  take  it  and  sell  it  around  at  the  houses, 
or  take  orders  for  it.  I  know  I  tried  to  catch  one  fellow  of  that  class 
who  came  to  my  house.  I  live  in  a  suburb  of  Chicago.  He  came  to 
the  house,  and  offered  us  butter  the  year  round  at  23  or  25  cents  a 
pound.  He  said  that  the  people  whom  he  represented  owned  cream- 
eries in  Iowa,  and  that  fact  made  it  possible  for  them  to  sell  butter 
cheaper  than  anybody  else  could  sell  it. 

My  wife  would  not  buy  any,  but  when  I  heard  of  it,  I  told  her,  if  he 
came  around  again  the  next  day,  to  give  him  an  order  for  some.  I  did 
that  expecting  to  catch  the  fellow.  He  came  around  about  a  week 
after  that,  and  she  gave  him  an  order.  Then  I  "  laid  "  for  the  gentle- 
man when  hetcame  around  to  deliver  the  goods.  What  did  I  find? 
When  the  goods  came,  they  were  delivered  by  an  expressman,  some- 
body absolutely  not  connected  with  the  thing  at  all,  and  I  could  find 
no  one  to  arrest  and  prosecute.  The  expressman  came  to  collect  for  the 
stuff,  and  brought  it  C.  O.  D.  He  disclaimed  any  connection  with  the 
concern,  and  I  was  not  able  to  locate  the  people  at  all. 

Under  such  conditions  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  us  to  get  any 
kind  of  legal  testimony  unless  we  trace  them  down,  and  even  then  there 
is  no  way  to  do  it. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  499 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  What  was  the  character  of  the  goods — oleo- 
margarine ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oleomargarine.  They  went  through  the  whole  neigh- 
borhood and  took  orders.  They  killed  the  butter  trade  in  the  neigh- 
borhood absolutely,  by  claiming  that  because  they  had  creameries  they 
could  sell  butter  much  cheaper  than  anybody  else. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  Mr.  Knight  a  ques- 
tion? Will  Mr.  Knight  tell  the  committee,  in  case  the  Grout  bill  becomes 
a  law  and  the  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  continues  business  and 
pays  this  tax,  where  any  fraud  will  be  suppressed,  and  where  in  any  par- 
ticular the  manufacturers  can  not  do  just  exactly  as  they  are  doing  now  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Bailey,  I  will  answer  that  question  as  T  have 
answered  it  a  dozen  times  to  you  and  anybody  else. 

No  man  goes  out  and  commits  fraud  for  fun.  No  man  goes  and  vio- 
lates our  State  laws  for  the  fun  of  violating  them.  No  man  violates 
the  internal-revenue  laws  for  the  fun  of  violating  them.  He  violates 
them  because  there  is  8  or  10  cents  a  pound  profit  in  violating  them. 
With  a  10-cent  tax  on  colored  oleomagarine,  the  profit  would  go  to  the 
Government  in  case  oleomargarine  were  used.  I  think  that  is  a  full 
answer,  Mr.  Congressman. 

Representative  BAILEY.  No;  the  fraud  would  be  perpetrated  exactly 
the  same. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  think  people  perpetrate  fraud  for  fun. 

Just  one  other  point,  and  I  will  close,  gentlemen. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  to  you  about  the  inspection  of  the  Inter- 
nal-Revenue Department.  A  gentleman  from  Ohio  was  telling  you 
about  what  rigid  inspection  and  supervision  the  Government  main- 
tained over  this  oleomargarine  traffic.  He  told  you  that  inspectors 
visit  their  factories  and  inspect  their  goods  and  keep  a  lookout  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  there  are  any  deleterious  substances 
in  those  goods  or  not.  It  has  been  attempted  in  that  way  to  lead  you 
into  a  belief  that  the  industry  is  really  under  Government  supervision, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  manufacturers  refuse  to  report  the  mate 
rials  they  use  when  they  are  called  on,  as  shown  by  this  case  up  in 
Rhode  Island. 

There  are,  in  the  United  States,  over  9,500  dealers,  I  believe,  and  30 
manufacturers  of  oleomargarine.  The  report  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Internal  Revenue  for  the  year  1900,  which  I  hold  here,  shows  that 
during  the  year  1900  the  chemical  department  of  that  bureau  made  177 
analyses.  You  can  figure  the  proportion  177  bears  to  nearly  10,000. 
That  will  show  you  how  many  times  a  year  they  get  around  to  these 
retailers  and  inspect  their  goods,  and  inspect  the  wholesalers,  and 
inspect  the  factories. 

There  has  been  an  attempt  here  to  make  it  appear  that  the  manu- 
facture of  this  product  is  really  under  Government  inspection,  when 
the  Government  absolutely  cares  about  nothing  except  to  get  the  rev- 
enue out  of  it.  That  is  all  the  Internal- Revenue  Department  cares  for 
in  any  place.  It  is  not  a  police  department;  it  is  not  a  pure-food 
department,  and  you  can  not  make  that  out  of  it. 

There  is  where  the  trouble  has  been— in  the  attempt  to  compel  the 
Internal  Revenue  Department  to  enforce  a  provision  of  the  law  relat- 
ing to  the  stamping  and  branding,  which  is  absolutely  apart  from  its 
business.  As  Commissioner  Wilson  said  before  the  House  committee, 
they  enforce  the  law  from  a  revenue  standpoint,  not  from  a  pure-food 
standpoint. 


500  OLEOMARGARINE 

Senator  MONEY.  Would  it  not  be  worse  then?  They  would  not  be 
so  anxious  to  make  money  out  of  it,  would  they? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Commissioner  Wilson  himself  states,  and  it  is  in  the 
testimony  here,  that  he  had  no  fear  but  what  the  tax  part  of  it  would 
be  enforced  if  they  made  the  tax  10  cents  a  pound. 

Senator  MONEY.  In  other  words,  they  would  be  divested  of  the 
desire  to  make  money  out  of  it  by  increasing  the  tax  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Let  me  tell  you,  in  answer  to  that,  that  the  fraud  in 
oleomargarine  is  not  inspired  by  the  desire  to  evade  the  tax,  but  by 
the  desire  to  get  a  price  like  that  of  butter— to  get  the  butter  price. 
There  is  where  the  fraud  comes  in. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  Now,  following  out  that  same  argument, 
would  they  not  be  compelled  to  sell  it  as  butter  if  they  had  to  pay  this 
10-cent  tax?  Would  you  not  compel  the  retailer  to  sell  it  as  butter  by 
virtue  of  that  fact? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  is  no  incentive  in  any  man  to  sell  oleomargarine 
as  butter  unless  there  is  a  profit  in  it — that  unless  it  is  better  than  but- 
ter; and  if  it  is  better  than  butter  it  can  go  on  its  own  merits. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  If  you  take  the  price  to-day  and  add  10 
cents  a  pound  to  it,  and  make  the  manufacturer  or  dealer  pay  that  extra 
10  cents,  you  will  compel  him  to  sell  the  product  as  butter.  That  would 
still  leave  the  fraud  unrestricted. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No ;  there  would  be  8  cents  a  pound  less  profit  in  the 
transaction  if  he  did  it,  and  that  is  a  good  deal. 

Now,  Senator,  I  will  leave  these  books  here,  showing  you  the  down- 
ward trend  of  prices  of  butter  during  the  last  ten  years,  and  with  that 
1  shall  close. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  strikes  me,  before  going  any  further, 
that  a  time  limit  ought  to  be  set  here,  and  that  we  ought  to  determine 
when  these  hearings  shall  close. 

Senator  MONEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  say  that  I  had  an  under- 
standing with  the  chairman  of  the  committee  that  there  would  be  no 
action  of  that  sort  taken  until  Senator  Warren  came  back  from  Boston. 
There  is  nobody  here  to-day  but  myself  in  oppposition  to  this  course. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  When  will  he  be  here,  Senator? 

Senator  MONEY.  He  is  to  speak  to  night  to  the  Boston  Wool  Manu- 
facturers' Association,  and  he  will  certainly  be  here  by  Monday.  I  do 
not  think  he  could  possibly  be  here  by  to-morrow.  He  asked  me  par- 
ticularly to  see  about  this  matter,  and  at  his  request  I  suggested  to  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  that  no  executive  business  of  that  sort  be 
transacted  until  his  return. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course,  it  is  evident  to  anybody  that 
whatever  the  report  of  this  committee  may  be,  pro  or  con,  if  the  bill  is 
to  be  acted  upon  at  this  session  of  Congress  it  must  be  reported  upon 
within  a  reasonable  time. 

Senator  MONEY.  Well,  we  can  not  put  out  of  joint  any  of  the  appro- 
priation bills,  which  are  coming  up  right  along,  so  far  as  that  is  con- 
cerned; so  a  week  more  would  not  make  a  bit  of  difference  in  that 
respect. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  formed  no  opinion  thus  far  upon  the 
merits  of  this  bill,  and  shall  form  none  until  the  hearings  are  con- 
cluded. But  it  is  due  to  all  parties,  in  my  judgment,  that  we  report 
upon  the  measure  as  speedily  as  we  can  conveniently  do. 

Senator  MONEY.  Now,  I  am  going  to  make  a  motion,  Mr.  Chairman. 
That  motion  is  that  Mr.  Coyne  be  invited  to  appear  here  as  speedily 
as  possible — say  next  Monday.  If  he  has  anything  to  say  in  reply  to 


OLEOMARGARINE.  501 

the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  this  morning,  I  think  he  should  be  given 
an  opportunity  to  be  heard. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  any  objection  to  that,  gentlemen? 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Why,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  we  are  going  into 
matters  of  that  kind,  there  have  been  accusations  made  here  which 
would  bring  a  hundred  people  to  this  Capitol  in  order  to  present  the 
other  side  of  these  matters  and  dispute  accusations  which  have  been 
made.  I  think  Mr.  Coyne's  telegram  states  everything  that  he  can  say. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  believe  that  his  settlement  should  be  with  the 
Treasury  Department  rather  than  with  us,  anyhow. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  point  is  just  this:  You  are  asking  for  testi- 
mony upon  certain  points  which  seem  to  be  considered  important  by 
some  people.  I  do  not  consider  them  so.  They  are  of  no  importance 
whatever  to  me.  One  side  of  this  matter,  however,  has  been  heard. 
The  question  now  is,  Are  you  willing  to  hear  the  other  side  or  not? 
Are  you  willing  to  hear  rebuttal? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Senator,  no  reference  was  made  to  Mr.  Coyne, 
as  I  understand  it,  until  the  gentleman  who  had  a  telegram  from  him 
here  to-day  read  it,  disparaging  the  statements  made  by  the  witness 
and  the  witness  himself;  whereupon  he  replied.  I  cautioned  him  against 
continuing  the  personal  controversy.  I  think  it  would  be  an  endless 
matter  if  we  allowed  it  to  continue. 

Senator  MONEY.  If  the  committee  does  not  want  to  hear  him,  if  it 
wants  to  prevent  his  being  heard  by  a  vote  of  the  majority,  that  is  all 
right.  But  I  want  to  ask  the  committee  if  it  will  not  instruct  the 
stenographer  to  send  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Knight  by  mail  this  evening 
to  Chicago  to  Mr.  Coyne,  and  ask  him  to  make  a  reply,  to  be  submitted 
as  part  of  the  evidence?  Nobody  is  under  oath  here. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  suppose  he  could  send  a  resume  of  Mr. 
Knight's  statement.  Mr.  Knight,  however,  has  been  talking  here  for 
two  or  three  days.  He  could  hardly  transcribe  his  notes  of  his  entire 
remarks  in  time  to  do  what  you  suggest.  I  suppose  the  clerk  could 
send  a  resume  of  what  has  been  said  this  morning. 

Senator  M  ONE Y.  I  only  mean  that  part  where  he  referred  to  Mr. 
Coyne  this  morning. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  make  a  suggestion?  Inasmuch 
as  they  seem  to  want  some  specific  instance  of  where  they  have  been 
oifered  evidence  and  have  refused  to  present  it,  I  will  state  that  the 
case  of  M.  A.  Wright  (I  think  that  is  the  name)  is  a  matter  of  the  kind. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  case  involving  the  two  tubs  of  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes ;  I  will  give  you  the  name,  so  that  you  can  have  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  a  part  of  what  you  said  about  Mr. 
Coyne? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes ;  that  is  specific. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  Mr.  Reporter,  the  extract  from  the 
proceedings  to  be  sent  to  Mr.  Coyne  will  embrace  this  precise  state- 
ment about  these  two  tubs  of  butter,  as  you  have  it  there. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No ;  I  beg  your  pardon.  That  is  the  wrong  case.  The 
case  about  which  I  have  been  speaking  here  to-day  is  not  the  case  we 
carried  to  the  Supreme  Court;  it  was  another  case.  We  have  had  so 
many  of  those  cases  that  it  is  difficult  for  me  to  remember  them  all.  I 
can  look  it  up. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  it  is  the  one  that  embraces  these  two 
tubs  of  oleomargarine  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  a  clear  violation  of  the  law. 


502  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  do  not  doubt  that  every  law  which  was  ever  passed 
is  violated  every  day  by  somebody.  But  when  a  specific  charge  is 
made  against  a  man  charged  officially  with  collecting  revenue,  to  the 
effect  that  he  does  not  enforce  the  law  at  all,  I  think  he  ought  to  be 
given  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  self-defense.  If  the  committee 
does  not  want  him  to  come  here  then  I  think  the  charge  that  is  made 
against  him  ought  to  be  sent  to  him  at  once,  and,  as  it  is  not  a  very 
lengthy  one,  I  suggest  that  it  be  telegraphed  to  him  under  the  frank  of 
the  Senate. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Then,  if  that  is  to  be  done,  I  ought  to  give  full  details 
here,  so  that  there  will  be  no  misunderstanding. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Senator  Money,  I  observe  by  the  telegram 
sent  by  Mr.  Coyne  that  he  says  that  he  has  "long  since  ceased  to  pay 
any  attention"  to  what  Mr.  Knight  says.  Do  you  think  he  would 
respond  to  a  message  of  the  kind  you  propose  sending? 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  not  the  point  at  all.  I  want  to  hear  what 
he  has  to  say.  I  do  not  care  whether  he  wants  to  come  or  not. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  you  regard  it  as  material  here,  or  merely  as 
a  matter  of  justice  to  him? 

Senator  MONEY.  No ;  1  regard  it  as  somewhat  material  to  the  case 
here.  A  charge  is  made  here  that  this  stuff  is  sold  all  over  the  city  of 
Chicago,  and  that  the  revenue  officials  do  nothing  at  all  about  it,  and 
will  not  bring  the  cases  before  the  judges,  because  they  can  make  more 
money  out  of  them  in  fees, 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Why,  gentlemen,  I  could  bring  you  50  witnesses  who 
have  taken  cases  of  violations  of  the  law  to  him 

Senator  MONEY.  I  simply  want  this  man  to  have  a  chance.  He  may 
or  may  not  be  an  honest  official.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  him. 
I  never  heard  of  him  before,  personally. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  seems  to  me  this  is  altogether  a  collat- 
eral issue. 

Senator  MONEY.  It  makes  no  difference  whether  it  is  or  not.  It  is 
an  important  issue. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  understand  the  committee  has  decided  to 
send  this  charge  to  him. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly;  the  reporter  will  do  that. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  this  matter  is  to  be  taken  up 
specifically,  if  you  are  going  into  it,  I  should  give  you  the  exact  details 
of  the  affair,  so  that  Mr.  Coyne  will  understand  what  I  mean. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Mr.  Chairman,  with  the  consent  of  the  committee  and 
of  Mr.  Knight  I  would  like  to  make  a  suggestion  with  reference  to  this 
matter  of  the  internal-revenue  collector  of  Chicago.  It  may  not  meet 
with  Mr.  Knight's  approval,  and  it  may  be  presumptuous  in  me  to  sug- 
gest it  to  this  committee;  but  with  consent,  I  would  like  to  do  it.  It 
seems  to  me  to  be  a  reasonable  solution  of  this  matter.  Have  I  the 
consent  of  the  committee? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Go  ahead. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  What  is  the  suggestion? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  will  give  it. 

Senator  Money,  in  the  course  of  the  witness's  testimony,  calls  upon 
him  for  explicit  evidence  as  to  violations  of  the  law.  In  the  course  of 
his  general  answer  to  that  question,  properly  made,  properly  answered, 
a  gentleman  here  representing  the  oleomargarine  interests  introduces 
a  telegram,  as  the  Senator  has  indicated,  criticizing  Mr.  Knight,  sub- 
stantially; and  in  self-defense  he  makes  reply,  and  brings  out  a  state- 
ment of  facts  of  the  correctness  of  which  he  is  no  doubt  thoroughly 
convinced. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  503 

Now,  that  excites  some  feeling  among  our  friends  upon  the  other 
side.  But  I  want  to  say  to  Mr.  Knight  and  to  this  committee  that  we 
do  not  base  our  case  before  this  committee  or  before  Congress  upon  any 
particular  act  of  a  single  Federal  official,  however  discreditable  it  may 
have  been.  The  case  which  we  are  endeavoring  to  establish  before  this 
committee  is  simply  this — and  we  have  proved  it;  I  will  not  take  the 
time  to  recite  the  proof — that  this  business  of  selling  oleomargarine, 
colored  in  imitation  of  butter,  is  permeated  with  fraud  at  some  stage 
or  other  of  the  proceedings.  It  is  not  vital  to  this  case  that  a  single 
instance  like  this  should  go  into  the  record.  And  I  will  ask  Mr.  Knight's 
consent,  and  that  of  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side  and  of  the  com- 
mittee, to  strike  out  of  the  record  everything  which  relates  to  the 
internal-revenue  collector  of  Chicago. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  1  think  myself  that  the  record  ought  to  be 
edited  with  a  great  big  blue  pencil. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  must  be,  or  it  will  make  a  volume  bigger 
than  this  desk. 

Senator  MONEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  here  is  Mr.  MacNamee,  representing 
the  Confederated  Labor  Union  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  who  wants  to  make 
about  ten  minutes7  remarks. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  heard  him,  but  I  think  we  will 
hear  him  again. 

Before  he  begins,  however,  do  you  insist,  Senator  Money,  upon  this 
matter  being  telegraphed  to  Mr.  Coyne1? 

Senator  MONEY.  Oh,  no;  not  if  the  whole  matter  is  to  be  stricken 
out  of  the  record,  although  the  impression  will  be  left  upon  the  minds 
of  the  committee. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  do  the  gentlemen  who  have  made 
these  statements  consent  that  they  shall  go  out  altogether? 

Senator  MONEY.  I  believe,  Senator,  that  I  will  insist,  if  you  please, 
upon  this  statement  being  sent  to  Mr.  Coyne.  Then  we  can  take  the 
liberty  of  striking  them  both  out  of  the  record  if  we  choose  to  do  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Senator,  I  will  appeal  to  the  committee  to  sustain  me 
in  the  statement  that  I  did  not  bring  these  things  in  voluntarily. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  record  shows  that. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am  willing  that  they 
should  be  stricken  out. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  what  further  are  we  to  do  this  morn- 
ing, gentlemen? 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  think  it  would  be  a  good  idea  to  adjourn. 
I  would  like  to  ask  now  who  desires  to  be  heard  this  afternoon? 

Senator  MONEY.  Pretty  nearly  all  of  the  gentlemen  who  have 
appeared  thus  far  have  talked  indiscriminately;  but  I  should  like  to 
suggest  to  the  committee  that  on  Monday  I  shall  move  to  close  these 
hearings  by  Wednesday. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  By  the  following  Wednesday? 

Senator  MONEY.  By  the  following  Wednesday. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Oh,  I  think  that  is  too  long  a  time. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well;  then  I  will  make  this  sugges- 
tion, and  I  want  Senator  Money  to  hear  it,  that  if  we  can  get  a  full 
committee  or  a  majority  of  the  committee  here  this  afternoon  I  shall 
move  to  close  these  hearings  by  Monday  night. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  can  not  get  the  full  committee  here,  that  is  cer- 
tain, because  Senator  Warren  will  not  be  here. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  if  we  can  get  a  majority  of  them 
here. 


504  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  will  try  to  be  here,  although  I  am  attempting  to 
keep  up  with  the  Army  bill  at  the  same  time. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  shall  make  the  motion,  then.  I  think  the 
hearings  ought  to  be  closed  and  the  report,  whatever  it  may  be,  made. 

Senator  MONEY.  Well,  gentlemen,  I  do  not  think  you  are  going  to 
facilitate  business  by  taking  this  sort  of  course.  I  do  not  want  to  be 
dilatory,  but  I  do  want  fair  play.  If  you  are  going  to  take  advantage 
of  your  majority  to  press  us  to  a  conclusion  here,  when  other  men  want 
to  be  heard,  and  when  members  of  the  committee  who  are  absent 
especially  request  that  the  thing  be  delayed  for  a  day  or  two— 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  There  will  be  no  difficulty  about  that,  Senator. 
Senator  Warren  can  be  counted  as  present. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  evidence  is  altogether  cumulative 
now. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  may  be  true,  too.  I  do  not  know  about  it, 
however.  Nobody  can  say  that  positively.  They  do  not  know  what  new 
matter  may  be  sprung  at  any  time.  But  I  want  to  ask  that  this  gen- 
tleman [Mr.  McNainee]  be  heard  for  a  few  minutes  before  we  adjourn. 
He  is  a  representative  of  the  laboring  people. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Go  on,  Mr.  McNamee. 

Senator  MONEY.  And  he  simply  wants  to  reply  to  certain  strictures 
made  upon  him  by  a  former  speaker. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Let  it  be  understood,  however,  that  there 
must  be  nothing  in  the  way  of  personalities  here. 

Senator  MONEY.  No  new  matter ;  he  simply  wishes  to  reply. 

ADDITIONAL   STATEMENT   OF  JOHN  0.  McNAMEE,  OF   COLUMBUS, 

OHIO. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen:  I  simply  desire  to 
submit  this  as  my  reply  to  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Knight  last  night. 

It  would  be  a  very  great  hardship  upon  me  to  be  compelled  to  stay 
here  any  longer,  as  I  must  transact  this  afternoon  some  private  busi- 
ness, which  I  have  come  to  Washington  to  look  after,  and  be  gone 
to-morrow  morning.  I  have  no  personal  feeling  toward  any  gentleman 
who  has  been  connected  with  either  side  of  this  controversy.  As  for 
Mr.  Knight,  personally,  I  think  that  he  is,  under  normal  circumstances, 
a  good  fellow,  and  if  it  were  in  my  power  to  do  him  a  favor  I  would 
gladly  do  it.  But  I  have  a  duty  to  perform  and  I  must  perform  it. 

I  desire  to  take  exception  to  Mr.  Knight's  method  of  designating 
my  representative  power.  He  has,  in  referring  to  me,  used  the  expres- 
sion, "the  gentleman  who  represents  himself  as  representing  organized 
labor." 

Permit  me  to  pause  to  say  that  I  will  not  submit  to  any  questions, 
that  I  will  submit  this  as  my  answer,  and  then  go.  This  will  be  posi- 
tively my  last  appearance  before  this  committee  at  this  session. 

The  credentials  which  I  bear,  gentlemen,  from  the  Columbus  Trades 
and  Labor  Assembly,  bearing  the  seal  of  that  organization  and  the 
signatures  of  its  officers,  should,  I  think,  be  sufficiently  authentic  to 
shield  me  from  implied  imputations  of  that  nature  on  the  part  of  even 
those  gentlemen  interested  in  the  destruction  of  the  interests  that  I 
have  been  instructed  by  my  constituents  to  protect.  I  would,  therefore, 
request  that  this  reference  to  my  representing  myself  to  represent 
organized  labor  be  stricken  from  the  record,  as  my  credentials  alone 
make  such  representation.  Mr.  Knight  claims  that  there  are  but  28 
labor  organizations  which  have  taken  action  against  the  Grout  bill.  I 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  505 

desire  to  impress  upon  you,  gentlemen,  that  some  of  the  organizations 
included  in  that  number,  even  though  Mr.  Knight  be  correct  in  his  esti- 
mate, represent  in  turn  hundreds  of  subordinate  organizations  affiliated 
with  them,  the  membership  of  which  will  go  into  the  hundreds  of  thou 
sands.  They  are  what  is  known  in  the  labor  world  as  central  bodies, 
and  although  it  has  been  now  some  months  since  these  resolutions  were 
adopted  by  them,  and  although  the  delegates  of  which  they  are  com 
posed  have  reported  back  to  their  various  suborganizations,  the  fact 
that  those  resolutions  were  adopted,  we  have  yet  to  hear  the  first  pro- 
test against  or  objection  to  such  adoption  of  such  resolutions  on  the 
part  of  any  of  the  hundreds  of  local  or  subordinate  organizations  which 
constitute  such  central  bodies.  What,  I  ask  you,  could  be  more  evi- 
dential of  complete  acquiescence? 

Regarding  the  statement  the  gentleman  makes  relative  to  the  Chi- 
cago Federation  of  Labor  having  in  1897  adopted  certain  resolutions 
condemning  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine,  I  desire  to  say  that  Mr. 
Knight  has  acknowledged  that  such  action  was  taken  as  a  result  of 
his  representations  to  two  members  of  the  legislative  committee  of 
that  body,  who  in  turn  conveyed  to  their  fellow-members  the  informa- 
tion imparted  by  himself.  This  is  by  his  own  acknowledgment  the 
only  enlightenment  those  gentlemen  had  on  the  subject.  It  is  evident 
from  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  same  body  on  March  1,  1900,  more 
than  three  years  later,  and  which  I  herewith  submit,  that  as  a  result 
of  full  and  complete  investigation  they  have  discovered  that  the  rep- 
resentations of  Mr.  Knight  were  incorrect,  and  have  not  only  rescinded 
their  former  action,  but  in  the  most  vigorous  terms,  and  speaking  out 
boldly  and  clearly  for  all  they  represent  (and  that  means  thousands 
and  thousands  of  workingmen — workingmen  who  by  their  affiliation 
with  organizations  instituted  for  the  protection  of  their  rights  and 
interests  have  demonstrated  their  possession  of  a  high  standard  ot 
intelligence  and  the  fact  that  they  are  fully  alive  to  a  rigid  observance 
of  nature's  first  law — that  of  self  preservation)  protest  in  the  most 
vigorous  terms  against  the  legislative  persecution  and  destruction  of 
the  legitimate  industry,  manufacturing  butterine. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  those  resolutions : 

CHICAGO,  March  21.  1900. 
Hon.  WILLIAM  MCALEER. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  following  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Chicago 
Federation  of  Labor  at  regular  meeting,  Sunday,  February  4,  and  I  was  instructed 
to  forward  a  copy  of  same  to  you : 

Whereas  the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  is  deeply  interested  in  and  desires  to 
encourage  every  legitimate  industry  which  furnishes  employment  to  the  laboring 
classes;  and 

Whereas  efforts  are  being  attempted  by  contemplated  legislation  at  Washington 
to  destroy  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine,  thereby  displacing  large  numbers 
of  the  industrial  element  and  preventing  them  from  gaining  a  livelihood  as  well  as 
the  use  of  an  article  of  food  which  has  received  the  highest  testimonials  of  every 
chemist  in  this  country  and  the  indorsement  of  every  standard  work  that  treats  on 
the  subject  of  hygiene;  and 

Whereas  we  believe  the  efforts  to  place  a  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  on  colored 
butterine  is  inspired  by  selfish  motives,  so  that  the  manufacturers  of  butter  may 
charge  an  Tinreasonable  price  for  their  commodity  and  enable  the  large  creameries 
to  establish  surely  and  securely  a  butter  trust  which  may  raise  prices  as  their 
cupidity  may  dictate;  and 

Whereas  justice  demands  equal  rights  for  both  manufacturers  of  butter  and  but- 
terine, both  products  having  equal  merit;  any  adverse  legislation  against  either 
must  be  condemned ;  and 

Whereas  the  late  published  reports  furnished  to  Congress  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  proves  the  legitimate  and  growing  demand  for  butterine  and  discloses  the 
large  amount  of  revenue  derived  therefrom;  and 


506  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Whereas  we  believe  that  the  present  Federal  law  taxing  butterine  2  cents  per 
pound  and  the  additional  regulations  imposed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Rev- 
enue are  sufficient  to  properly  regulate  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine ;  there- 
fore be  it 

Resolved,  That  we,  the  representatives  of  the  industrial  classes  in  Chicago,  and 
voicing  as  we  know  we  do  the  sentiments  of  the  mechanic  and  the  laborer  through- 
out the  country,  protest  against  the  passage  of  the  Tawney,  Grout,  or  any  other  bills 
that  have  for  their  object  the  further  increase  of  tax  or  the  relegating  to  the  differ- 
ent States  the  right  to  enact  laws  that  are  opposed  to  the  interests  of  the  people  and 
in  no  way  in  harmony  with  the  inventive  and  progressive  spirit  of  the  age;  and  be 
it  further 

Resolved,  That  we  instruct  our  secretary  to  have  sufficient  copies  of  these  resolu- 
tions printed  that  one  be  mailed  to  every  Senator  and  Congressman  in  Washington 
and  one  to  each  of  the  labor  organizations  affiliated  with  the  Federation  of  Labor, 
requesting  them  to  indorse  same  or  pass  others  of  a  similar  character,  so  that  a  full 
expressior  of  our  condemnation  of  such  legislation  may  be  made  known. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

WALTER  CARMODY, 
Secretary  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor. 

Mr.  Knight  has  intimated  that  my  presence  here  has  been  influenced 
by  gentlemen  representing  the  butterine  interests.  This  statement  I 
most  emphatically  deny.  Were  my  presence  in  Washington  or  before 
this  committee  dependent  upon  any  financial  assistance,  past,  present, 
or  prospective,  given  or  promised  me  by  or  upon  the  generosity  of  the 
gentlemen  here  or  elsewhere,  or  any  other  person  representing  directly 
or  indirectly  any  butterine  industry  in  any  part  of  the  United  States 
or  of  the  world,  I  assure  you  gentlemen,  I  would  not  yet,  were  I  depend- 
ent upon  such  assistance  in  coming  here,  1  would  not  yet,  I  say,  have 
been  able  to  cross  the  eastern  corporation  line  of  my  home  city  of 
Columbus,  Ohio.  I  came  here  a  perfect  stranger  to  all  of  these  men. 
They  did  not  know  me.  They  did  not  know  of  my  coming,  nor  were 
they.,  as  far  as  I  know,  aware  of  the  fact  that  any  action  had  been  taken 
in  this  connection  by  our  body.  Having  been  instructed  and  empow- 
ered by  the  organizations  I  represent  to  oppose,  in  their  name  and  in 
their  behalf,  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill  to  the  fullest  extent  of  my 
ability,  for  the  reasons  as  expressed  in  my  credentials,  I  propose  to 
demonstrate  to  them  that  the  confidence  they  have  reposed  in  me  is 
fully  justifiable,  and  to  carry  out  their  wishes  and  their  instructions  to 
the  letter.  That  and  that  only,  together  with  my  own  instinctive  sense 
of  justice  and  right,  is  the  motive  which  actuates  my  present  course  in 
this  connection. 

Another  central  labor  organization,  representing  in  turn  hundreds 
of  subordinate  organizations  which  has  taken  action  against  the  Grout 
bill,  and  taken  such  action  unanimously,  is  the  Ohio  Federation  of 
Labor.  I  refer  to  the  action  of  this  body  particularly  because  its  pro- 
test is  not,  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  on  file  here.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  desire 
to  say  that  the  first  intimation  that  I  have  had  of  the  fact  that  said 
federation  had  adopted  resolutions  condemning  the  Grout  bill  was 
when  the  delegate  representing  the  Columbus  Trades  and  Labor 
Assembly  at  the  convention  of  said  Ohio  Federation  of  Labor,  held  in 
Newark,  Ohio,  last  November,  reported  that  fact  to  a  subsequent  meet- 
ing of  said  Columbus  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly  as  part  of  his  official 
report  to  said  body.  I  was  not  present  at  the  Ohio  Federation  of  Labor 
when  this  resolution  was  presented,  and  never  knew  that  such  a  course 
was  contemplated,  but  now  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  course  that  said 
bill,  together  with  all  unjust  legislation  which  affects  the  interests  of 
wage-earners,  should  receive,  as  it  is  receiving,  general  condemnation 
by  all  such  central  bodies  and  organizations.  I  would  be  safe  in  say- 
ing that  my  present  opposition  to  this  Grout  bill  is  representative  not 


OLEOMARGARINE.  507 

only  of  the  sentiment  of  organized  labor  in  the  premises,  but  of  that 
prevalent  generally  among  our  urban  citizens.  Speaking  particularly 
for  Columbus,  Ohio,  I  will  say,  and  without  the  slightest  fear  of  suc- 
cessful contradiction  or  contra  version,  that  such  sentiment  is  general 
from  our  wealthiest  and  most  representative  citizen,  the  retired  or 
active  business  man,  to  the  very  humblest  and  poorest.  The  fact  of 
the  matter  is,  gentlemen,  that  this  present  contention  has  resolved 
itself  into  an  attack  upon  urban  rights  by  rural  influences,  as  manipu- 
lated and  directed  by  the  collective  intelligence,  experience,  and  design- 
ing capacity  at  present  identified  with  the  operation  of  creamery 
concerns,  on  one  hand,  and  the  firm  determination  on  the  part  of  the 
men  representing  such  urban  rights  to  defend  themselves  against  such 
persecution  and  unjustifiable  invasion  of  their  constitutional  rights. 

It  speaks  badly  for  the  merit  of  the  contention  being  made  by  the 
gentlemen  at  present  engaged  in  attacking  the  butterine  industry  that 
some  of  them  should  be  compelled,  as  a  feature  of  their  effort,  to  resort 
to  reprisal  by  way  of  making  an  attack  on  labor  legislation,  as  some  of 
them  have  to  me  personally  threatened  they  would  do.  They  propose 
to  have  the  Senators,  whom  they  seemingly  profess  to  own  and  operate 
by  right  and  virtue  of  their  connection  (whatever  its  nature)  with  agri- 
cultural influences,  oppose  all  labor  legislation  which  may  hereafter  be 
introduced  in  the  United  States  Senate.  We  fear  not  such  threats,  and 
defy  these  gentlemen,  or  any  others,  to  put  them  into  operation.  We 
have  too  much  confidence  in  that  sense  of  independence,  prudence,  and 
justice  which  characterizes  the  United  States  Senator  to  believe  that 
any  one  of  such  Senators  would  lend  himself  to  these  gentlemen,  or  any 
other  men  or  set  of  men,  for  the  sheer  purpose  of  gratifying  a  desire 
for  revenge,  or  of  satiating  or  attempting  to  satiate  or  gratify  that 
narrow-minded  and  un-American  sense  of  intolerance,  prejudice,  and 
brow-beating  tyranny  which  has  characterized  every  action,  expression, 
and  argument  of  the  supporters  of  this  measure  in  their  efforts  to 
secure  its  passage,  based  as  it  is,  and  as  they  know  it  to  be,  upon  a 
childish,  senseless,  miserable,  contemptible,  threadbare,  and  transpar- 
ent subterfuge. 

We  have  no  quarrel  with  agricultural  Senators  or  agricultural  inter- 
ests. We  are  simply  endeavoring  to  protect  ourselves  from  the  evils 
sure  to  result  from  the  complete  formation  of  the  creamery  monopoly, 
the  foundation  of  which  is  already  laid  upon  the  anticipated  strangu- 
lation of  the  infant  industry  producing  oleomargarine.  Should  such 
strangulation  be  successfully  effected,  said  creamery  monopoly  will 
establish  itself  as  the  Standard  Oil  Company  is  at  present  established. 
They  will  own  little  creameries  located  in  every  village,  and  within  easy 
access  to  all  farmers  of  our  country,  to  which  said  farmers  will  deliver 
their  milk  just  as  the  Standard  Oil  Company  at  present  secures  its  oil. 
Said  creamery  monopoly  will  regulate  to  its  own  suiting  the  selling  price 
of  butter,  and  to  the  farmer's  sorrow  the  purchasing  price  of  milk.  They 
will  adopt  the  methods  in  general  use  by  monopolies  to  destroy  other 
competitors  if  they  succeed  in  utilizing  the  United  States  Congress  in 
destroying  the  oleomargarine  industry,  and  the  result  will  be  that  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  will  have  the  pleasure  of  paying  55  or  60 
cents  per  pound  for  butter,  or  going  without  it  altogether.  It  will  be 
the  same  old  story  of  our  citizens  paying  tribute  to  monopoly,  vainly 
endeavoring  to  satiate  monopolistic  cupidity,  which  as  we  all  know  is 
insatiable  and  merciless.  We  recognize,  and  if  necessary  will  defend 
the  rights  of  the  farmers,  but  we  do  not  propose  to  have  the  farmer 
trample  upon  the  rights  of  the  manufacturer  at  our  expense  if  we  can 


508  OLEOMARGARINE. 

prevent  it.  We  happen  to  have  interests  ourselves,  and  when  they  are 
attacked  we  propose  to  devote  organized  effort  to  their  protection.  I 
beg  to  submit  in  conclusion  one  of  the  great  number  of  resolutions 
adopted  by  labor  organizations,  viz,  that  of  the  Cleveland  Building 
Trades  Council,  a  central  body  representing  over  6,000  Cleveland  work- 
ingmen. 

BUILDING  TRADES  COUNCIL, 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  April  27,  1900. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  Building  Trades  Council,  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  and  vicinity,  repre 
senting  over  5,000  mechanics,  has  by  unanimous  vote  indorsed  the  action  of  the 
Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  and  all  the  other  labor  organizations  who  are  so  doing 
in  opposing  the  persecution  of  the  butterine  industry. 

We  can  not  see  any  justification  in  placing  a  larger  or,  in  fact,  any  tax  on  butterine 
or  oleomargarine.  The  article  is  sold  on  its  merits,  and  it  would  rather  hurt  than 
help  its  sale  to  attempt  to  sell  it  for  butter,  as  it  is  more  popular  and  generally 
regarded  as  more  healthy  than  butter.  Any  of  our  people  that  may  not  want  but- 
terine can,  while  it  is  on  the  market,  buy  butter  at  a  reasonable  price,  but  if  the 
attempt  to  kill  it  by  legislation  is  successful,  the  butter  manufacturers  will  have  no 
competitors,  and  the  result  will  be  that  the  present  butter  trust  will  absorb  the 
butter  industry  and  control  the  purchase  of  milk  by  having  little  creameries  in  every 
farming  locality  on  the  plan  of  The  Standard  Oil  Company,  and  we  will  have  the 
pleasure  of  50  or  60  cents  per  pound  for  butter,  or  going  without  it  altogether,  the 
chances  being  in  favor  of  the  latter. 

We  feel  that  as  butteriue  is  demanded  and  sold  for  what  it  is,  and  as  the  laws 
regulating  its  manufacture  and  sale  are  operating  successfully  in  preventing  its 
adulteration,  that  the  legislative  bodies  of  our  country  have  gone  as  far  as  they  have 
any  right  to  go,  and  that  further  interference  on  their  part  is  persecution  and 
intended  to  advance  private  interests  at  the  expense  of  the  rights  of  the  people. 

There  is,  undoubtedly,  political  motives  behind  all  this. 

There  are  a  hundred  different  cases  in  which  legislative  vigilance  could  protect 
the  people  from  adulterated  foods  where  such  vigilance  is  not  exercised,  or  if  in  any 
remote  way  ever  applied  it  is  not  being  taken  advantage  of  by  the  officials  supposed 
to  enforce  it;  and  why?  Simply  because  the  manufacturers  of  adulterated  foods  or 
the  beneficiaries  of  their  existence  have  no  influential  competitors  to  be  served  by 
their  suppression. 

Bntterine  has  been  the  victim  of  legislative  attacks  for  a  number  of  years,  and  we 
feel  it  is  now  time  to  let  up  on  it  and  devote  the  effort  wasted  in  the  persecution  of 
this  legitimate  industry  to  some  more  worthy  cause  in  the  protection  of  the  real 
interests  of  the  people. 

There  is  an  old  saying  that  "  He  who  is  bent  on  an  evil  deed  is  never  lacking  for 
an  excuse,"  and  it  is  certainly  applicable  in  this  case,  the  excuse  being  that  it  is 
wrong  to  color  butterine  because  it  is  likely  to  be  sold  as  butter,  whereas,  in  fact, 
owing  to  the  extreme  popularity  of  the  former,  there  is  more  liability  of  an  attempt 
being  made  by  some  butter  manufacturer  to  imitate  it,  and  the  only  reason  why  an 
attempt  is  made  to  prevent  the  use  of  the  material  in  butterine  imparting  color  to 
it  is  to  hurt  its  sale,  as  it  has  been  proven  this  material  is  perfectly  healthy.  And 
where  is  the  justice  of  prohibiting  its  use  simply  because  it  helps  the  sale  of  an 
honest  product? 

As  long  as  the  people  want  butterine  and  it  is  good  to  use,  as  the  Government 
chemists  have  proven,  why  should  it  be  abolished?  We  can  not  see  that  there  is 
need  to  say  more.  You  can  not  but  see  the  rank  injustice  of  this  whole  business, 
and  we  would,  therefore,  earnestly  request,  in  the  name  of  common  American  jus- 
tice, that  you  would  strenuously  oppose  and  exert  every  means  in  your  power  to 
defeat  all  such  legislation. 

This  letter  has  the  hearty  indorsement  of  our  body,  and  as  a  testimony  of  which  it 
bears  our  seal. 

W.  C.  DAVIS, 

President. 
GRANT  MORGAN, 


Senator  MONEY.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Knights  of  Labor? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  No,  sir;  I  am  vice-president  of  the  Columbus  Trades 
and  Labor  Assembly.  That  assembly  is  affiliated 

Senator  MONEY.  Do  you  know  how  the  Knights  of  Labor  stand  on 
this  question? 

Mr.  McEAMEE.  Well,  the  Knights  of  Labor  and  the  Federation  of 
Labor  are  two  different  bodies. 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


509 


Senator  MONEY.  Then  you  do  not  know  as  to  how  they  stand  ? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  As  to  the  Knights  of  Labor  I  will  say  that  they  are 
intermingled  all  through  the  labor  world  the  same  as  the  other  labor 
organizations.  Now,  the  Knights  of  Labor  are  a  general-  body  with 
which  smaller  organizations  are  affiliated;  but  I  will  say  that  it  has 
been  my  discovery,  wherever  I  have  heard  this  matter  discussed  in  the 
ranks  of  organized  labor,  or  amongst  wage  earners  at  all,  that  they  are 
absolutely  and  emphatically  in  favor  of  retaining  the  oleomargarine 
industry  in  competition  with  the  butter  industry,  because  they  see,  and 
they  are  absolutely  honest  in  contending,  that  if  the  oleomargarine 
industry  is  at  present  crushed  out  (as  it  will  be  if  this  Grout  bill  is 
passed),  a  monster  in  the  form  of  a  monopolistic  octopus  will  arise  and 
gather  in  all  under  its  protecting  care — the  butter  industries  of  the 
United  States. 

I  care  not  how  extensive  they  may  be.  Look  at  the  Standard  Oil 
Company.  It  has  monopolized  the  oil  industry  of  the  world.  And  it 
will  not  be  long  before  we  will  have  a  "  Standard  Butter  Company n 
which  will  be  stronger  than  the  United  States  Government. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  noticed  that  the  Standard  Butterine  Company 
is  about  to  be  established  here  in  Washington,  with  a  capital  of  $1,000,- 
000.  That  looks  threatening. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  But  they  have  permanent  competitors  in  the  form  of 
certain  creamery  institutions. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Did  you  hear  the  testimony  of  the  gentleman 
who  stated  something  here  about  oleomargarine  being  sold  in  this  city 
for  butter,  at  the  price  of  butter?  What  would  the  workingmen  think 
of  a  situation  like  that1? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Sold  for  butter? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Yes.  What  would  the  workingman  think  if  he 
went  to  buy  butter,  and  paid  a  butter  price,  and  got  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  McNAMEE,  Well,  I  will  tell  you,  Senator.  If  our  present  city 
and  State  and  district  governments  are  not  powerful  enough  to  enforce 
the  laws  as  they  exist,  they  ought  to  go  out  of  business. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  But,  my  friend,  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
was  telling  me  that  he  caught  a  little  oleomargarine  on  his  butter  plate 
this  morning,  at  his  hotel. 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Where? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  In  this  town.     He  was  not  looking  for  it. 

Senator  MONEY.  Did  he  have  a  testing  apparatus? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  He  has  had  a  great  deal  of  experience. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  gentleman  was  that? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  refer  to  Senator  Allen,  the  chairman  of  the 
committee,  here. 

Senator  ALLEN  (the  acting  chairman).  I  discovered  that  I  had  been 
eating  it  all  winter. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  And  he  had  been  paying  for  butter.  Now,  sup- 
pose the  workingman  got  into  that  situation  ? 

Senator  MONEY.  Well,  if  Senator  Allen  could  not  tell  it  by  the  taste, 
the  effect,  or  anything  else —  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Senator,  I  want  to  tell  you  a  little  story.  I  have 
got  an  old  German  mother-in-law,  who  is  as  bitterly  prejudiced  against 
biitterine  as  she  is  against  the  average  snake.  She  does  not  want  any 
of  it  near  her.  She  will  not  use  it,  and  will  not  have  anything  to  do 
with  it.  I  myself  continually  use  the  product  of  the  Capital  City  Dairy 
Company,  in  Columbus,  as  do  a  majority  of  Columbus  citizens.  My 
mother-in-law  was  telling  my  wife  about  the  man  who  came  around  to 


510  OLEOMARGARINE. 

her  house,  and  who  had  such  lovely  butter,  and  all  that.  My  wife  said : 
"  Well,  I  don't  know  that  that  butter  is  any  better  than  ours ; "  and 
when  my  mother-in-law  would  come  over  occasionally  and  have  a  meal 
with  us,  she  would  eat  some  of  the  butter  that  we  had.  My  wife  did 
not  detail  to  her  the  fact  that  it  was  butterine.  After  quite  a  length 
of  time  the  old  lady  said:  "Carrie,  that  is  good  butter  that  you  have 
got.  I  don't  know  but  what  it  is  as  good  as  mine."  u  Well,  mamma," 
said  she,  "that  isn't  butter;  it  is  the  butterine  you  hate  so  much." 
[Laughter.] 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  you  regard  that  as  a  fair  deal  with  the  old 
lady?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  Well,  I  will  tell  you,  Senator.  I  don't  know  how  fair 
it  may  have  been  to  my  mother-in-law;  but  I  do  know  that  it  is  a 
demonstration  of  the  fact  that  after  all  there  is  not  much  of  any  dif- 
ference between  butter  and  butterine.  Now,  if  one  is  as  nutritious  as  the 
other,  and  one  exists  as  a  competitor  of  the  other,  to  keep  these  big 
monopolies  from  cornering  the  butter  market,  why  not  let  them  both 
alone? 

Senator  MONEY.  Senator  Allen's  testimony  stands  for  all  that.  He 
ate  it  all  the  winter  and  did  not  know  the  difference. 

I  want  to  ask  a  question.  The  secretary  of  the  Knights  of  Labor 
has  told  me  that  his  organization  was  very  much  opposed  to  this  bill. 
They  want  butterine  and  oleomargarine,  if  they  choose  to  buy  them. 
Doyouknow  anything  about  any  resolutions  passed  by  that  organization? 

Mr.  McNAMEE.  The  Knights  of  Labor? 

Senator  MONEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  McN-AMEE.  No,  Senator.  I  simply  refer  to  the  Ohio  Federation 
of  Labor.  But  it  is  a  sentiment  that  is  instinctive  with  labor  all  over 
the  country — everywhere.  It  is  instinctive. 

(The  committee  thereupon  took  a  recess  until  2.30  p.  m.) 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  committee  resumed  its  session. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Senator  Hansbrough).  The  committee  will 
come  to  order. 

Senator  ALLEN.  There  has  been  considerable  discussion  here  about 
"oleo  oil."  Will  some  one  of  the  gentlemen  present  tell  us  what  it  is? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Oleo  oil  is  made  from  the  caul  fat  of  the  beef.  When 
a  steer  is  killed  it  is  cut  open  and  this  fat  is  taken  oif — this  yellow  fat 
that  lies  under  the  stomach  of  the  steer. 

Senator  ALLEN.  About  how  much  of  that  fat  do  you  get  from  the 
steer? 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  get  about  40  pounds  from  the  steer.  That  fat  is  put 
into  water  that  is  partially  chilled  by  ice.  It  stays  in  there  until  the 
animal  heat  is  eliminated.  Then  it  is  thoroughly  washed.  Then  it  is 
put  in  tanks  and  heated  to  a  temperature -of  about  155°  to  160°  Fahr- 
enheit. Then  they  take  a  cloth  about  the  size  of  a  large  towel,  and  it 
is  put  in  that  cloth.  Each  side  of  the  cloth  is  thrown  over  this  way 
[indicating].  Between  each  two  cloths,  of  course,  there  is  a  sheet  of 
tin.  Then  it  is  put  in  a  large  press  and  pressed,  and  the  oil  comes 
out.  That  is  oleo  oil,  and  the  residue  is  stearin.  The  stearin  is  not 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  butteriue,  but  it  is  used  with  oils,  wax,  and 
various  other  things.  While  Professor  Wiley  said  there  was  stearin 
in  butterine,  that  is  true;  but  it  is  the  body  of  all  oil.  Take  a  bottle  of 
cotton-seed  oil  and  let  it  stand  until  to-morrow  morning,  and  there  will 
be  a  lot  of  sediment  at  the  bottom ;  that  sediment  is  nothing  but  the 
stearin. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Where  does  paraffin  come  from? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  511 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  is  a  by-product  of  petroleum.  That  is  not  used 
iii  the  manufacture  of  butterine  at  all. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  are  the  other  ingredients'? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Neutral  is  made  from  the  leaf  lard  of  the  hog.  We  get 
about  8  pounds  of  that  to  the  hog.  That  is  churned  together  with 
refined  cotton -seed  oil. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  What  is  the  average  product  of  oleo  oil  to  the 
steer! 

Mr.  MILLER.  About  40  pounds  we  get. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  How  in  any  steers  are  slaughtered  annually  in 
the  United  States  from  which  this  fat  is  taken  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  think  it  has  been  stated  here  by  the  cattle  people 
that  it  is  about  5,000,000. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Is  that  a  correct  statement? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  judge  it  is. 

Senator  ALLEN.  How  is  oleo  oil  made? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  oil  expressed  from  the  fat  is  churned  together  with 
cream  and  salt  and  the  coloring. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  What  is  the  annual  export  of  oleo  oil  from  the 
United  States? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  think  in  the  neighborhood  of  140,000,000  pounds. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  And  what  is  the  annual  product  of  oleo  oil  enter- 
ing into  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  think  it  is  about  30,000,000  pounds  of  neutral  and 
26,000,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  So  that  the  aggregate  product  of  oleo  oil  you 
think  would  be  about  166,000,000  pounds? 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  is  right. 

Senator  HANSBROUGKB.  What  is  the  proportion  of  cotton-seed  oil 
used? 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  varies  at  different  times  in  the  year.  Sometimes  we 
use  15  per  cent  and  at  other  times  20  or  25  per  cent. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Let  100  represent  a  pound  of  oleomargarine  of  fair 
grade;  what  are  the  percentages  of  the  different  ingredients? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Of  course  it  varies.  All  of  the  manufacturers  have 
different  formulas,  and  again  they  vary  at.  different  times  in  the  year. 

It  would  average,  I  should  say,  about  30  per  cent  neutral,  20  per 
cent  cotton-seed  oil,  and  the  balance  butter,  cream,  salt,  and  coloring. 
The  statement  was  made  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  last  year 
that  there  was  only  about  10  per  cent  of  cotton -seed  oil  used.  That 
was  true;  but  that  must  be  coupled  with  the  fact  that  some  manufac- 
turers do  not  use  it  in  their  product. 

Senator  HANSBROUGrH.  So  that  it  is  not  a  necessary  ingredient? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir.  And  it  is  for  this  reason  that  the  high  grade 
of  butterine  is  rather  a  small  percentage  of  the  total  amount  of  butter- 
ine sold.  In  other  words,  there  is  more  of  the  grade  that  contains 
cotton  seed  oil  sold,  I  guess,  than  of  the  higher  grades. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Is  cotton-seed  oil  put  in  the  higher  or  the 
lower  grades? 

Mr.  MILLER.  In  the  lower  grades. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  In  regard  to  the  oleo-oil  product  from  the  steer, 
I  would  like  to  get,  if  it  be  possible  to  do  so,  the  average  oil  product, 
not  from  the  heavy  steer,  but  the  average. 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  average  is  about  40  pounds. 

Senator  HANSBROUGrH.  Including  cows  and  all  beef  creatures? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  HANSBBouan.  The  caul  fat? 


512  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  we  use  that  in  order  to  get  the  proper  taste. 
Oleo  oil  as  we  make  it  is  pure  neutral  oil,  and  it  has  no  taste.  If  we 
use  the  poorer  fats  of  the  beef,  we  should  get  a  tallowy  taste. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  talked  yesterday  with  an  old  butter  man. 
I  said,  "Can  you  tell  the  difference  between  oleomargarine  and  but- 
ter?" He  said,  "  Yes."  I  said,  "How  do  you  do  it?"  He  said,  "  I  take 
a  little  piece  and  allow  it  to  melt  on  my  tongue."  Then  I  said,  "What 
happens?"  He  said,  "If  it  is  good  butter,  no  disagreeable  taste  fol- 
lows ;  if  it  is  oleomargarine,  there  is  sure  to  be  a  tallowy  taste." 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  is  not  true  of  all  grades. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  He  spoke  generally,  and  that  was  his  taste. 
He  said  he  had  dealt  in  hundreds  of  thousands  of  pounds  of  butter,  and 
he  had  also  dealt  in  oleomargarine;  and  he  gave  it  as  the  result  that 
the  oleomargarine  always  had  that  tallowy  taste. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Take  neutral  oleo  oil  and  cotton  seed  oil,  and  it  is  the 
endeavor  to  get  those  oils  just  as  neutral  as  possible. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Usually,  I  believe,  it  takes  a  less  amount  of  heat  to 
melt  butter  than  it  does  to  melt  butterine? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir.  They  had  that  point  up  before  the  House 
committee  and  had  Professor  Schweitzer,  a  very  intimate  friend  of 
Professor  Wiley,  of  the  Agricultural  Department,  make  a  test.  He 
took  samples  from  the  market ;  he  did  not  take  samples  made  up  for 
the  occasion,  as  stated  here;  and  the  melting  point  for  the  best  grade 
of  butteriue  and  of  the  best  grade  of  creamery  butter  was  exactly  the 
same,  96°  Fahrenheit. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  think  that  Governor  Hoard,  who  was  here 
last  week,  made  a  statement  to  the  effect  that  there  was,  perhaps,  a 
difference  of  two  or  three  degrees  in  the  temperature. 

Mr.  MILLER.  There  is  not.  I  have  had  our  chemist  and  several 
other  chemists  make  the  test. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  recall  the  statement  he  made  at  the  time. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  In  this  report  of  Schweitzer,  that  Mr.  Miller  speaks  of, 
he  reports  the  following  as  the  melting  point  of  each  of  the  different  sam- 
ples he  had :  Lotus  82.95,  Magnolia  84.65,  Silver  Churn  93.65,  Princeton 
96.80,  Best  Butter  96.80.  Those  samples  of  oleomargarine  here  yester- 
day when  subjected  to  a  test  of  over  120  degrees  clarified  here  in  half 
an  hour.  That  was  the  melting  point.  Why  does  it  clarify? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  tests  were  perfectly  clear  at  82.95  to  96.80, 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  In  your  tests  yesterday,  when  you  heated  butter  or 
butterine  it  separated,  but  that  was  not  the  case  with  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  butter  clarified,  but  the  butterine  did  not. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  clarification? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  clarification  of  a  thing  is  when  the  sediment  goes 
to  the  bottom. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  wish  you  would  have  some  samples  tested  here  by 
Professor  Schweitzer. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  We  have  sent  a  lot  of  samples  to  the  Depart 
inent,  and  have  asked  for  a  full  report. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Not  long  ago  I  was  coming  to  Washington  on  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  Eailroad  to  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  my  eminent 
duties  here.  On  entering  the  dining  car  and  sitting  at  the  table,  I  found 
a  couple  of  pieces  of  butter,  not  extraordinarily  large,  which  had  a  kind 
of  greenish  appearance,  that  is,  while  it  was  yellow,  yet  it  seemed  to 
have  a  shade  of  green.  What  was  that? 

Mr.  JELKE.  That  was  occasioned  by  the  use  of  some  peculiar  shade 
of  butter-coloring  matter.  I  remember  a  few  years  ago,  when  some 
of  our  customers  preferred  butter  with  a  sort  of  reddish  tint  to  the  yel- 


OLEOMARGARINE.  513 

low,  rather  than  the  greenish  tint  of  yellow,  while  others  preferred  the 
greenish  tint. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  notice  that  the  cotton- seed  oil  has  a  greenish 
tint. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  made  up  nay  mind  at  that  time  it  was  possibly 
cotton-seed  oil  that  had  given  it  that  slightly  greenish  color. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  should  not  like  to  express  an  opinion  upon  something 
I  had  not  seen.  Cotton  seed  oil  may  have  been  in  it. 

Senator  ALLEN.  1  am  not  a  chemist  or  specialist  of  any  kind;  I  could 
not  reproduce  it;  I  can  only  tell  you  how  I  remember  it;  but  while  the 
general  color  was  yellow,  it  seemed  to  have  a  slightly  greenish  tinge  to 
the  yellow. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  also  remember,  when  I  was  in  the  butter  business,  of 
boiling  it  for  twenty- four  to  thirty-six  hours  with  anuato,  and  then 
putting  in  what  we  call  turmeric,  something  of  a  similar  character, 
only  of  a  different  color;  it  is  a  vegetable,  and  it  has  a  greenish  tint; 
that  is,  if  you  get  a  little  too  much  of  the  turmeric  in  with  the  annato 
that  greenish  tint  predominates,  and  if  you  get  a  little  less,  then  the 
reddish  tint  predominates. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  How  do  you  get  the  butter  taste  into  the 
oleomargarine  ? 

Mr.  JELKE.  By  the  use  of  milk  and  cream ;  in  the  better  grades  by 
the  addition  of  a  percentage  of  the  finest  butter  we  can  buy. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  are  not  obliged  to  use  milk  and  cream 
to  make  certain  grades  of  oleomargarine1? 

Mr.  JELKE.  We  can  get  a  butter  flavor  without  the  use  of  milk  and 
cream,  but  I  do  not  think  any  oleomargarine  is  made  without  the  use 
of  milk  and  cream. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  have  to  have  some  product  of  the  cow, 
then,  to  get  the  butter  taste? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Always;  yes,  sir.  In  fact  we  are  now  taking  into  our 
factory  every  day  the  milk  and  cream  from  300  or  400  cows — cans  of 
milk  and  cream  of  8  gallons  each.  That  all  comes  from  the  farm. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  D.  A.  TOMPKINS, 

Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  discussion  of  a  subject  like  this,  it  seems  to 
me  to  be  important  to  keep  it  in  the  direction  of  what  constitutes  the 
merits  of  the  whole  industrial  subject,  and  not  have  it  take  a  course 
that  would  simply  put  the  subject  in  the  attitude  of  an  argument  as 
to  whether  one  phase  of  an  industry  were  being  created  by  another 
phase  of  industry;  and  legislation  should  have  reference  to  any  faults 
that  were  found  in  the  whole  industry,  and  not  have  reference  to  any 
kind  of  tax  that  would  be  calculated  to  handicap  one  end  of  it  and 
throw  money  in  the  direction  of  the  other  end  of  it. 

In  the  development  of  the  industries  of  the  United  States  we  have 
constantly  found,  from  time  to  time,  industries  that  were  put  in  the 
situation  where  improvements,  energy,  the  working  of  more  time,  and 
talents  were  handicapped.  That  was  notable  in  the  case  of  Bessemer 
steel.  When  that  was  first  introduced  into  this  country  it  was  a  bogus 
industry;  it  was  unreliable;  not  a  great  deal  was  known  about  it. 
And  yet,  in  the  face  of  all  the  opposition  it  transpired  in  the  end  that 
it  was  the  best  thing  that  ever  happened  to  oar  metallic  industries. 

And  in  the  business  of  flour  and  wheat  that  went  West,  they  had 
methods  of  getting  whiter  Hour,  perhaps  not  better  flour,  but  the 
people  are  still  buying  the  whiter  flour;  so  that  business  went  out  of 
S.  Ron.  9,(U2 as 


514  OLEOMARGARINE. 

existence  in  this  Eastern  section  of  the  country,  either  because  of  the 
lack  of  enterprise  or  because  the  conditions  here  were  not  so  favorable. 
At  any  rate,  we  all  know  that  that  industry  left  New  England  and  went 
West  on  account  of  the  energies  of  the  Western  people. 

We  also  know  that  the  manufacture  of  Corliss  engines  has  practically 
gone  from  New  England  to  the  West,  simply  because  of  the  energy, 
talent,  and  capability  of  the  people  of  the  West  to  make  better  and 
cheaper  engines  than  can  be  manufactured  in  New  Edgland. 

In  the  development  of  this  business  of  food  stuifs  for  the  human  race, 
it  seems  to  me  that  what  ought  to  be  considered  is  only  whether  the  proc- 
esses are  injurious  to  anybody;  that  whatever  you  do  in  respect  of  one 
industry  in  the  matter  of  producing  food  stuff's,  as  respects  their  proc- 
esses, ought  to  be  equally  applicable  to  the  other  branches  of  that  same 
industry. 

Whether  these  food  stuffs  are  wholesome  or  not,  the  distinguished 
Secretary  of  Agriculture  yesterday  expressed  an  adverse  opinion.  Yet 
in  the  testimony  before  the  House  committee  we  find  that  on  examina- 
tion of  his  chemist,  we  have  a  very  clear-cut  expression  of  opinion  from 
him,  on  page  228: 

Representative  BAILEY.  Dr.  Wiley,  let  ine  ask  you  this  question :  Do  you  consider 
oleomargarine  a  wholesome  article  of  food? 
Dr.  WILEY.  I  do. 

Also  on  page  196  there  is  similar  testimony : 

Dr.  WILEY.  Two  years  ago  I  was  addressing  farmers'  institutes  in  southern 
Indiana — 

That  relates  to  a  subject  you  have  already  had  presented  to  you,  of 
various  kinds  of  butters  packed  together  in  barrels  to  be  shipped  for 
renovation. 

On  page  93  there  is  a  statement  relating  to  the  finding  of  a  subcom- 
mittee appointed  by  the  United  States  Senate  Committee  on  Manufac- 
tures, of  which  Hon.  W.  E.  Mason  was  chairman,  "  that  the  product 
known  as  oleomargarine  is  healthful  and  nutritious,  and  no  further 
legislation  is  necessary." 

With  reference  to  the  processes  of  manufacture,  if  it  is  right  to  under- 
take to  eliminate  certain  points  of  the  processes  of  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine,  because  they  are  immoral  or  because  they  are  injurious, 
it  is  equally  proper  that  they  should  be  eliminated  from  the  processes 
of  the  manufacture  of  butter. 

You  have  had  the  most  ample  testimony  as  to  butters  of  all  degrees 
of  purity.  Butters  of  various  kinds  were  taken,  and  by  chemical  means 
more  or  less  purified,  and  by  the  addition  of  coloring  matter  made  to 
resemble  spring  butter  by  means  of  growths  of  bacteria  known  as 
Pond's  culture,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  flavor  of  spring  butter. 
In  the  production  of  an  article  of  food  in  the  shape  of  oleomargarine, 
if  it  is  improper  to  use  coloring  matter  simply  because  it  gives  some  sem- 
blance to  the  product  of  spring  butter,  is  it  not  equally  immoral  and 
equally  unfair  in  trade  to  use  bacteria?  If  you  forbid  the  renovation 
of  butter  so  as  to  give  it  the  flavor  of  spring  butter,  if  you  undertake 
to  forbid  the  manufacture  of  butter  from  the  product  of  cows  fed  on 
swill,  is  it  not  equally  improper  to  undertake  to  forbid  the  uniform  col- 
oring of  this  food  product,  in  whatever  way,  or  whence  it  comes?  If, 
by  means  of  coloring  matter,  butter  is  made  of  other  foods  than  are  in 
yellow  butter,  and  butter  is  produced  that  is  similar  to  spring  butter, 
made  from  the  product  of  cows  fed  on  spring  grass,  by  the  addition  of 
the  product  from  the  cotton-seed  mills  or  other  food  stuffs,  if  there  is 


OLEOMARGARINE.  515 

any  immorality  in  the  one,  there  is  certainly  a  similar  immorality  in  the 
other. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  would  not  claim  that  butter  made  from  the 
product  of  swill-fed  cows  is  wholesome,  would  you? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  understand  that  people  object  much  more  seriously 
to  eating  that  kind  of  butter  than  they  do  to  eating  many  products 
that  are  entirely  healthful. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  have  eaten  it,  and  often  found  it  as  sweet  as  any 
butter  in  the  world. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Of  course  it  depends  upon  what  the  swill  comes  from. 
But  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  of  course,  we  know  that  the  use  of 
any  of  the  swills  produced  in  cities  is  very  much  objected  to  for  the 
production  of  milk  or  for  any  food  purpose. 

To  my  mind  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  day  before  yesterday  struck 
the  keynote  of  the  whole  remedy  when  he  was  talking  about  the  sub- 
ject of  the  education  of  a  lot  of  young  men,  as  the  result  of  which  the 
dairy  business  has  been  put  in  a  very  improved  condition.  To  the  com- 
petition of  the  valuable  products  that  go  into  our  milk  we  must  look  in 
the  future,  as  we  have  in  the  past,  to  giving  the  very  freest  opportunity 
for  the  exercise  of  talents,  of  new  inventions,  the  development  of  raw 
materials  for  cheaper  and  better  products;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the 
world  that  will  so  much  contribute  to  an  understanding  of  the  subjects 
they  are  handling  as  the  education  of  the  youth  of  the  country.  At  the 
present  time  what  the  agricultural  and  dairy  interests  of  the  country 
want  is  not  a  law  putting  an  embargo,  as  it  were,  upon  the  energies  and 
talents  of  those  who  are  working  the  cotton- seed  oil  business,  who  are 
developing  the  production  of  stock;  upon  the  consumers  who  are  using 
the  products,  and  upon  the  advancement  that  has  been  brought  about 
by  these  occupations,  but  leave  them  in  a  situation  in  which  competition 
will  drive  them  to  the  same  intelligent  endeavor  to  find  out  in  what 
way  they  can  better  their  products,  in  what  way  the  people  who  a^e 
furnishing  this  cheap  butter  at  railway  stations  can  be  induced  to  fur- 
nish good  butter,  thus  enabling  the  consumer  to  get  a  higher  class  and 
a  better  quality  of  butter  at  better  prices,  just  as  the  oleomargarine 
people  have  found  a  way,  by  means  of  cotton-seed  oil — a  most  whole- 
some product — and  the  application  of  chemical  science  and  the  best 
mechanical  appliances,  to  make  a  good,  wholesome,  and  cheap  food  for 
the  people. 

Then  in  whatever  respect  either  one  of  these  occupations  misrepre- 
sents its  goods  to  the  trade  it  ought  to  be  forbidden.  To  any  extent 
which  either  one  of  them  is  furnishing  an  unwholesome  article  of  food 
to  the  people  it  ought  to  be  prevented.  But  to  simply  handicap 
improvements  that  one  set  of  people  have  found  out;  to  handicap 
the  new  food  stuffs  that,  by  energy  and  talent  and  education,  have 
been  brought  to  the  people,  by  a  tax  for  the  benefit  of  the  other  people 
who  are  not  giving  proper  attention  to  the  development  of  their  trade, 
is  to  depart  from  the  principles  upon  which  all  the  industries  in  America 
have  been  built  up.  Whenever  a  man  has  had  the  freest  opportunity 
to  find  out  something  that  was  not  known  to  other  people,  thereby 
enabling  him  to  make  as  cheap  goods  or  cheaper  goods  than  other  peo- 
ple furnished,  something  that  was  not  unwholesome,  that  should  do  no 
harm  to  anybody,  he  has  the  right  to  put  that  article  on  the  market 
and  enjoy  the  emoluments  arising  therefrom.  We  equally  know  that 
when  an  industry  finds  itself  in  that  condition  where,  in  competition 
with  others,  by  the  application  of  more  intelligent  methods  or  the  appli- 
cation of  new  processes,  it  can  not  work  to  equal  advantage  with  or 


510  OLEOMAKGAR1NK. 

better  than  its  competitors  it  must  go  down  and  the  other  business 
takes  its  place. 

The  conditions  in  Europe  have  been  frequently  spoken  of.  We  find 
that  vast  quantities  of  cotton  seed  oil  have  been  shipped  to  Germany 
and  to  Holland  every  year,  and  that  the  use  of  it  in  their  dairies  has 
given  them  the  very  best  results.  They  are  making  butters  both  for 
their  own  use  at  home  and  for  export.  It  has  been  used  both  in  their 
dairy  processes  and  in  their  oleomargarine  processes,  and  in  both  with 
ample  knowledge  of  the  very  best  methods;  and  for  that  reason  we 
hear  nothing  of  this  competition  over  there.  Whatever  is  not  injurious 
is  permitted;  whatever  is  fraudulent  is  not  permitted;  and  whatever  is 
unwholesome  either  in  the  processes  of  dairy  butter  making  or  in  the 
oleomargarine  making  is  strictly  forbidden  both  in  Germany  and  Hol- 
land, and  ought  to  be  forbidden  in  this  country.  There  is  no  discrimi- 
nation in  respect  of  one  being  taxed  in  favor  of  the  other,  but  the  law 
simply  provides  that  the  processes  must  be  such  as  will  give  whole- 
some products;  that  no  ingredients  must  be  put  in  either  that  will  be 
injurious,  and  the  coloring  matter  is  not  so  considered. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Some  time  ago  Congress  passed  a  law  taxing 
what  is  known  as  mixed  Hour.  The  testimony  taken  before  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee  of  the  House  was  quite  distinctly  to  the  effect 
that  a  common  mixture  with  flour  was  cornstarch.  It  was  very  dubious 
in  the  minds  of  everybody  whether  pure  cornstarch  added  to  the  mill 
product  of  wheat  was  injurious.  Many  testified  that  it  was  a  common 
practice  for  housewives,  in  making  bread,  to  add  cornstarch  to  the 
flour  in  the  process  of  the  domestic  manufacture  of  bread,  and  had 
been  for  a  long  time.  But  Congress  found  that  there  were  a  large 
number  of  people  manufacturing  flour,  or  what  was  put  upon  the 
market  under  the  name  of  flour,  which  contained  a  percentage  of  starch 
in  addition  to  the  products  of  the  grain  of  wheat,  and  that  that  article 
was  being  sold  here  and  abroad  under  the  name  of  flour,  greatly  to 
the  injury  of  those  who  were  in  competition  in  that  business  and  did  not 
so  mix  their  flour.  So  Congress,  in  placing  that  tax  upon  mixed  flour, 
proposed  this:  simply  that  whoever  sold  flour  should  sell  what  the 
world  commonly  called  and  understood  to  be  flour.  The  main  object 
of  the  Government  was  to  prevent  people  from  being  swindled  in  buy- 
ing flour  which  contained  ingredients  that  did  not  belong  to  pure  flour. 
Is  there  any  objection  to  that  kind  of  legislation? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  see  no  objection  to  that  kind  of  legislation. 
Neither  is  there  objection  to  legislation  which  requires  that  people  who 
make  butterine  or  oleomargarine  or  butter  should  brand  it  for  exactly 
what  it  is.  The  fault  in  the  case  you  speak  of,  Senator,  was  not  that 
people  might  not  mix  their  10  per  cent  of  starch  with  90  per  cent  of 
the  product  of  wheat,  if  everybody  who  bought  it  so  understood. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  It  appears  here  that  32  States,  including  the 
great  commercial  and  industrial  cities  of  the  country,  have  prohibited 
the  manufacture  and  sale  in  their  borders  of  oleomargarine  made  in 
the  imitation  of  butter — made  so  that  it  looks  like  butter.  Neverthe- 
less, it  would  seem,  from  what  is  said  here,  that  the  business  goes  on 
thriving,  often  best  in  those  great  cities  that  are  located  in  States  that 
have  made  that  prohibition.  The  testimony  here  seems  to  show- 
speak  more  particularly  in  respect  of  the  retail  trade  of  Chicago — that 
this  article  is  sold  to  the  public  for  butter  at  a  price  which  ought  to 
command  the  genuine  article.  What  objection  is  there  to  some  scheme 
of  legislation  that  would  utterly  prevent  that,  so  that  everybody  who 


OLKOMARGAKINK.  51  7 

sits  down  to  a  hotel  table,  or  at  his  own  table,  may  be  secure  against  the 
swindle  involved  in  paying  for  pure  butter  and  getting  oleomargarine! 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  There  is  not  the  slighest  objection  to  any  scheme 
being  devised  which  will  do  that,  but  which,  on  the  other  hand,  does 
not  take  away  from  an  industry  its  right  to  handle  its  business  under 
conditions  that  are  given  to  another  industry,  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
first  industry.  Is  it  any  more  right  for  butter  collected  at  railroad 
stations,  appearing  in  various  sorts  of  shapes,  to  be  doctored  with  a 
growth  of  bacteria,  to  be  colored  so  as  to  look  like  spring  butter,  to  be 
otherwise  doctored  and  manipulated  and  sold  for  what  it  is  not  on  the 
proposition  that  it  is  spring  butter"? 

What  this  committee  wants  to  do — and  that  is  exactly  what  I  am 
dwelling  upon — is  to  undertake  what  is  right  in  both  instances,  and 
not  adopt  a  scheme  of  taxation  that  takes  away  from  one  side  of  the 
question  in  order  to  prevent  the  proper  handling  of  their  goods  under 
favorable  conditions,  and  gives  to  the  other  side  the  advantage  in  that 
respect,  and  disregarding  in  both  cases  the  question  of  the  extent  of  the 
misrepresentations  made  and  giving  to  the  untaxed  side  the  right  to  do 
absolutely  all  the  things  ymi  forbid  the  oleomargarine  people  to  do. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  There  is  great  force  in  what  you  say. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  That  is  my  whole  proposition — that  whatever  testot 
honesty  is  to  be  on  one  side,  be  put  on  the  other;  that  whatever  test 
of  competition  is  put  on  one  side,  should  be  put  on  the  other;  if  one 
color  is  to  be  eliminated  on  one  side,  let  it  be  eliminated  on  the  other — 
but  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  injurious  at  all  I  do  not  see  the  use  of  forbid- 
ding it  at  all,  any  more  than  I  see  no  use  in  forbidding  a  woman  to 
attempt  to  make  herself  attractive  by  wearing  beautiful  clothes. 

All  goods  used  in  the  manufacture  of  wearing  apparel  are  put  upon 
the  market  in  nice  and  attractive  shape.  A  little  starch  is  added  to 
the  cloth.  It  might  be  said  that  is  not  honest.  It  is  said  that  certain 
goods  weigh  I  pounds  to  the  yard;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  do  not; 
they  only  weigh  3£  pounds;  the  other  half  pound  is  starch.  That 
starch  is  put  in  because  people  demand  that  goods  shall  have  an 
attractive  and  smooth  appearance.  If  that  question  of  putting  in  starch 
to  add  to  the  attractive  appearance  of  goods,  when  it  actually  falsifies 
the  condition  of  the  goods,  should  ever  come  before  this  committee, 
then  it  would  be  your  proper  province  to  undertake  to  stop  it.  If  you 
find  occasion  to  undertake  to  stop  it  .in  one  line  of  trade,  you  ought  to 
undertake  to  try  to  stop  it  in  another. 

But  as  a  matter  of  truth,  here  we  have  a  totally  different  proposition. 
We  have  a  condition  in  which  competition  has  brought  new  articles  of 
food  on  the  market,  Here  is  an  old-established  institution  overslaughed 
in  their  methods,  as  acknowledged  by  the  distinguished  Secretary  of 
Agriculture — and  we  all  know  that  tlxey  are —  finding  themselves  com- 
peting with  new  methods,  not  keeping  their  business  up  to  the  demands, 
and  failing  by  reason  of  competition.  Is  it  fair  and  proper  that  they 
should  come  here  and  call  down  methods  that  have  been  devised  by 
energy,  by  talent,  by  education,  by  preparation,  and  by  discovery,  and 
eliminate  a  great  part  of  the  just  rewards  for  that  progressivejiess,  for 
the  benefit  of  those  who  do  not  do  anything  of  that  sort? 

Besides  that,  if  you  take  this  subject  to  relate  only  to  dairy  butter, 
the  people  who  have  cows,  who  mako  the  best  sort  of  butter,  in  every 
case  where  these  people  have  developed  the  best  methods  they  have 
been  able  to  get  ample  prices  for  their  product.  I  have  understood 
that  two  dairymen  in  the  last  two  or  three  days  have  testified  here,  one 
testifying  that  he  got  35  cents  a  pound  for  his  butter,  and  the  other 


518  OLEOMARGARINE. 

that  he  received  55  cents  a  pound.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  getting 
laws  passed  that  will  still  further  enhance  the  value  of  the  product  of 
dairy  butter  produced  from  cattle  that  are  known  often  where  the  milk 
is  bought.  But  when  the  dairymen  know  the  surrounding  conditions, 
the  quantity  of  that  kind  of  butter  I  acknowledge  is  exceedingly  limited 
and  the  prices  are  very  excellent.  The  great  complaint  that  is  being 
put  up  here  is  not  by  the  producers.  The  great  bulk  of  cheap  butter  is 
produced  by  people  who  do  not  give  any  attention  to  the  production  of 
butter.  They  have  not  learned  what  the  proper  food  stuffs  are.  The 
complaint  is  not  being  made  by  them,  but  by  the  men  who  buy  exceed- 
ingly cheap  butter  and  have  it  renovated,  give  it  a  taste  by  bacterial 
growth,  and  give  it  color,  just  exactly  as  the  oleomargarine  people  give 
their  product  color.  Those  are  the  people  who  are  making  the  biggest 
fight,  and  it  is  practically  oleomargarine  against  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  to  a  question  ? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Upon  what  authority  do  you  base  statement  that  the 
makers  of  process  butter  are  the  ones  who  are  making  this  fight  here? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Well,  upon  the  general  proposition  that  we  have  seen 
a  good  deal  of  them  here,  and  we  have  heard  a  great  deal  of  testimony 
on  the  subject. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  it  seems  to  me, 
denounced  the  process  butter  worse  than  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  know  he  did.  Nevertheless  the  support  of  this  bill 
comes  largely  from  those  manufacturers. 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  bulk  of  the  testimony  introduced  under  the  applica- 
tion of  the  butter  dealers  ol  Philadelphia  all  went  to  show  that  they 
were  dealers  in  process  butter,  with  the  exception  of  two  dairymen,  one 
who  realized  35  cents  a  pound  the  year  around  for  his  butter,  and  the 
other  who  averaged  55  cents  a  pound  the  year  around  for  his  butter 
and  said  he  never  sold  butter  for  less  than  50  cents.  Otherwise  the 
testimony  all  through  has  gone  to  show  that  there  have  been  no  farmers 
here,  no  consumers  here. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  From  my  own  State  I  am  in  receipt  of  6  to 
20  letters  a  day,  and  have  been  for  several  weeks  past,  from  individ- 
ual farmers  who  are  interested  in  creameries  there,  who  are  furnishing 
milk  to  them,  or  are  stockholders  in  them,  requesting  me  to  favor  the 
passage  of  the  Grout  bill.  Those  farmers,  of  course,  can  not  come  all 
the  way  to  Washington.  I  simply  state  that  as  a  fact. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  married  my  wife  on  a  farm ;  1  have  in  central  Illinois 
as  large  a  following  of  good  friends  who  are  farmers  and  the  finest 
people  I  know  of  anywhere;  but  I  should  like  to  state  that  there  is  not 
one  of  them  that  has  had  the  other  side  of  the  question,  the  oleomar- 
garine side  of  the  question  presented,  who  would  not  come  down  here, 
if  necessary,  and  take  the  Capitol  by  force  of  arms. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Let  me  inject  a  remark. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Mr.  Tompkius,  do  you  object  to  any  more  of 
your  time  being  occupied? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  say  this,  that  two  or  three  days  ago  there 
was  a  resolution  introduced  at  the  instigation  of  the  oleomargarine 
people,  in  the  chamber  of  commerce  in  St.  Paul.  A  lot  of  the  business 
men  there  failed  to  pass  resolutions  condemning  the  Grout  bill.  An 
attorney  came  before  the  meeting  and  gave  the  oleomargarine  side, 
talked  an  hour  on  that  proposition,  and  talked  all  about  the  oleomar- 
garine side  of  it.  Congressman  Tawney  went  up  there  and  gave  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  519 

other  side.  Instead  of  passing  a  resolution  condemning  the  Grout  bill, 
the  chamber  of  commerce  then  instructed  their  resolution  committee 
unanimously  to  bring  in  a  resolution  indorsing  the  Grout  bill.  That 
is  the  kind  of  verdict  we  get  from  disinterested  and  fair-minded  people. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  do  not  regard  that  question  as  material. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  but  it  is  being  introduced  here. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  So  far  as  Congressmen  should  be  governed  by 
the  views  of  their  constituents,  they  have  superior  means  of  finding  out 
what  their  constituents  want.  But  I  do  not  regard  it  as  material  to  go 
into  that. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  would  like  to  say  that  Senators  have  not  alone  received 
these  letters  and  telegrams.  It  might  be  suggested  that  they  have 
been  instigated  by  some  dairy-paper  publisher.  Last  evening  we  had 
some  letters  coming  from  Cincinnati,  and  before  we  are  through  here  I 
will  find  out  and  send  to  the  committee  the  reasons  why. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  can  explain  it. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Perhaps  they'came  here  after  the  fashion  of 
the  telegram  of  Attorney  Coyne. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  can  explain  that.  That  interests  Mr.  Schell ;  he  is 
from  Cincinnati.  I  will  say  that  I  telegraphed  that  one  man  from  Cin- 
cinnati, an  attorney  for  the  oleomargarine  people,  had  made  a  state- 
ment to  the  effect  that  oleomargarine  was  sold  only  as  oleomargarine 
in  the  city  of  Cincinnati;  that  it  was  all  properly  stamped,  and  that 
there  were  no  violations  of  the  law. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  beg  pardon.  I  did  not  put  that  in  that  report.  I 
said  they  were  violations  of  the  color  law. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  asked  this  friend  of  mine  in  Cincinnati  to  find  out 
and  have  merchants  of  Cincinnati  write  me  if  that  were  so.  He  went 
to  them  and  submitted  my  telegram,  and  they  answered  it  and  furnished 
me  that  information.  I  have  furnished  it  to  the  committee,  and  if  you 
want  it  I  will  give  you  a  copy  of  the  telegram  I  sent  him.  I  don't  know 
but  I  have  it  in  my  pocket. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Regarding  the  statements  or  letters  presented  from 
Cincinnati  by  Mr.  Knight,  1  should  like  to  call  attention  to  some  clip- 
pings from  the  Cincinnati  Enquirer  of  January  9  and  10.  It  appears 
that  some  years  ago  there  was  a  produce  exchange  in  Cincinnati.  That 
produce  exchange  was  an  association  of  the  small  commission  mer- 
chants and  butter  dealers  and  dealers  in  butter  and  eggs  and  poultry. 
The  produce  exchange  went  to  pieces  largely  on  account  of  a  corner  on 
eggs  that  was  engineered  by  a  couple  of  members  who  had  bought 
futures  in  eggs  for  December  delivery.  The  contract  stated  that  they 
were  to  be  delivered  u fresh  in  season."  Naturally  the  parties  who 
bought  the  eggs  supposed  they  were  fresh-laid  in  December.  But  there 
happened  to  be  a  majority  of  the  people  who  were  on  the  short  side  of 
that  corner,  and  they  ruled  that  they  were  supposed  to  be  such  eggs 
as  could  be  called  fresh  eggs  in  December,  no  matter  whether  they  had 
been  laid  in  the  previous  June,  July,  or  August.  So  there  was  quite  a 
bitter  feeling  stirred  up,  and  the  produce  exchange  practically  went  to 
pieces  in  consequence  of  it.  Now,  Mr.  Knight  brings  in  some  letters 
from  just  such  merchants;  I  do  not  question  but  that  they  araall  good 
people.  But  let  me  read  his  extract  from  the  Cincinnati  Enquirer  of 
January  9 : 

The  board  of  directors  of  the  chamber  of  commerce 

That  is  the  leading  body  of  merchants  in  Cincinnati,  corresponding 
with  such  a  body  as  do  business  in  Chicago,  known  as  the  board  of 


520  OLEOMARGARINE. 

trade,  or  in  New  York  as  the  produce  exchange,  where  grain  is  dealt 
in — 

The  board  of  directors  of  the  chamber  of  commerce  yesterday  reopened  the  case 
in  which  the  butter  men  were  arrayed  against  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers. 
The  latter  opposed  the  Grout  bill,  and  M  majojity  of  the  board  of  directors  signed  a 
protest  against  the  passage  of  the  bill,  which  protest  was  forwarded  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  at  Washington.  The  bill  puts  a  heavy  increased  tax  on  oleomarga- 
rite,  if  colored,  and  the  manufacturers  held  that  it  would  drive  them  out  of  the  busi- 
ness. The  directors  considered  the  matter  at  length,  and  finally  confirmed  the  action 
of  the  majority  of  the  board  taken  some  time  ago,  as  stated. 

This  is  from  the  Cincinnati  Enquirer  of  January  10: 

There  is  dissension  among  the  produce  and  commission  men  on  change  that 
threatens  to  call  into  question  the  legal  existence  of  the  body  that  is  generally 
known  as  the  Produce  Exchange  of  Cincinnati. 

The  question  has  been  brought  up  by  tho  action  of  the  members  of  that  body  yes- 
terday in  passing  a  resolution  in  which  exceptions  were  taken  to  the  action  of  the 
directors  of  the  chamber  of  commerce  in  calling  on  Congress  to  defeat  the  passage  of 
the  Grout  bill,  which  is  hostile  to  the  interests  engaged  in  the  making  of  oleomarga- 
rine. The  creamery-butter  men  want  the  bill  passed,  as  it  puts  a  tax  of  10  cents  a 
pound  011  colored  oieo,  and  thus  makes  it  easier  for  the  creamery-butter  makers  to 
sell  their  product  without  the  competition  of  the  oleo  men. 

At  yesterday's  session  the  butter  men  in  the  produce  exchange  passed  the  follow- 
ing resolution  : 

Whereas  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Cincinnati  Chamber  of  Commerce  has 
memorialized  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  that  the  organization  is  opposed  to- 
the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill : 

Be  it  resolved,  That  the  Cincinnati  Produce  Exchange,  members  of  the  Cincinnati 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  do  condemn  the  action  above  taken,  and  do  respectfully 
urge  your  speedy  and  favorable  action  upon  the  Grout  bill. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  That  resolution  was  sent  to  the  chairman  of 
the  committee,  I  will  state.  I  have  it  here,  signed  by  David  Dreifus 
as  president  and  H.  J.  Finke  as  secretary. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Also,  in  reply  to  some  statements  made  regarding  the 
sale  of  oleomargarine  for  butter  in  Cincinnati,  I  have  a  telegram  from 
my  brother  living  in  Cincinnati,  whom  I  notified  last  night  by  tele- 
phone. His  answer  reads  as  follows: 

Collector  Bettman  authorizes  me  to  say  for  him  that  it  is  not  true  that  large  quan- 
tities of  oleomargarine  are  sold  in  the  Cincinnati  markets  as  butter;  that  the  law  is 
more  closely  observed,  and  there  is  less  violation  of  the  law  and  revenue  regula- 
tions in  regard  to  oleomargarine  than  in  regard  to  either  whisky  or  tobacco;  and 
that  he  will  make  this  statement  over  his  own  signature  if  asked  by  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Internal  Revenue. 

F. JELKE. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  With  reference  to  communications  from  farmers,  I 
want  to  say  that  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  the  farmers,  who 
are  very  much  interested  in  this  subject,  ap  to  the  present  time  do  not 
know  about  it,  and  those  who  produce  the  cotton  seed  and  are  inter- 
ested in  the  cotton  seed  that  goes  into  the  cotton  seed-oil  mills  do  not 
know  about  it.  If  it  is  a  question  of  getting  communications  from 
farmers  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  at  least  50  per  cent  of  the 
farmers  could  be  got  to  petition  against  the  bill,  which  will  depreciate 
their  interest  not  less  than  $2  a  ton  on  2,000,000  tons  of  seed. 

On  the  subject  of  the  interests  that  are  affected  we  have  some  testi- 
mony that  was  given  before  the  House  committee  on  the  subject  of  the 
cattle  interests,  that  since  the  fall  of  1895  there  has  been  a  depression 
in  the  value  of  live  stock  to  the  extent  of  $02,000,000.  I  have  not  the 
slightest  doubt  that  the  passage  of  the  bill  would  affect  the  farmers7 
cotton-seed  interests  to  the  extent  of" at  least  $2  a  ton  on  all  the  seed 
that  they  sell. 

Mr.  KNIG.ET.  Will  you  yield  to  a  question? 


t  OLEOMARGARINE.  521 

TOMPKINS.  Yes,  sir. 
KNIGHT.  How  do  you  figure  it  out? 
,  TOMPKINS.  By  taking  the  quantity  of  oil  off  the  market  where 
it  is  sold  at  present ;  it  will  depreciate  the  value  of  the  whole  amount 
of  cotton-seed  oil,  because  the  surplus  product  is  what  controls  prices, 
not  the  whole  quantity. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  the  quantity  of  oil? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  quantity  of  oil  is  from  1,500,000  to  2,000,000  bar- 
rels. It  is  difficult  to  state  the  amount  exactly. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  that  quantity1?  k 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  is  from  1,500,000  to  2,000,000  barrels  of  oil  that  is 
produced. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  do  not  grasp  my  question.  That  is  what  I  have 
been  trying  to  get  at  in  the  cotton  seed  business.  What  do  you  con- 
sider to  be  the  relative  value  of  the  production  of  oleo  in  this  country 
to  cotton  seed  oil? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  consider  the  finest  pressed  oil  about  5  cents  a  gallon. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  not  the  question  at  all.  What  is  your  market 
for  cotton- seed  oil  to  tnese  manufacturers?  How  much  do  you  market1? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  We  have  their  testimony  for  that.  I  think  they  can 
give  you  a  more  accurate  estimate  of  it  than  I  can,  probably. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  Internal-Revenue  Commissioner 
shows  that  you  sold  to  them  last  year  less  than  $500,000  worth  of  that 
oil? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  could  not  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  it  is  a  fact.  I  think  the  committee  will  accept 
my  statement,  because  this  is  a  matter  of  record. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  But  that  may  not  be  any  measure  at  all  of  the  quan- 
tity of  oil  that  goes  into  the  product,  because  it  may  have  gone  through 
several  other  channels.  We  know  that  they  use  cotton  seed  oil  to  the 
extent  of  10  to  30  per  cent  and  that  it  furnishes  a  large  market  for  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  not  know  how  much  they  actually  use? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  According  to  their  testimony,  I  say. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  not  know  how  much,  exactly,  they  use  accord- 
ing to  their  own  testimony? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  That  testimony  stands  for  itself. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is,  what  is  the  value  of  the 
product?  According  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  it  was  about 
$8,800,000,  as  I  understand. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  is  not  a  question  of  the  value  of  that.  It  is  a 
question  of  what  will  be  the  cause  of  destroying  that  market  and 
limiting  the  sale  of  cotton-seed  oil  in  the  markets  that  are  left. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  ask  you  this  question :  You  claim  there,  as  I 
understand,  that  the  loss  of  a  market  of  a  half  million  dollars'  worth 
of  cotton-seed  oil  would  lower  the  value  of  your  product  to  the  extent 
of  $2,000,000? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  In  a  differential  market  it  might  easily. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Then  why  would  it  not  be  a  good  investment  to  burn 
up  a  half  million  dollars'  worth  and  thus  advance  the  price? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  We  are  not  in  the  business  of  burning  up.  Each 
man  would  have  to  burn  his  own  oil,  and  you  can  not  bring  about  a  situa- 
tion of  that  kind.  It  might  bring  about  the  same  result  if  you  did.  No 
individual  man  is  going  to  burn  his  own  product,  and  I  doubt  if  the  law 
would  permit  a  combination  to  do  it.  That  is  not  the  question  at  issue. 
We  have  this  example  before  us:  That  the  production  of  a  cotton  crop 
of  11,000,000  bales  carried  the  price  to  5  cents,  and  the  production  of 


522  OLEOMARGARINE. 

55,00,000  bales  doubled  the  price.  Isn't  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  a 
like  cause  would  have  a  similar  influence  on  the  prices  of  other  goods! 

Mr.  KNIGHT,  I  do  not  think  that  any  man  who  is  engaged  in  busi- 
ness will  assent  to  the  statement  that  the  destruction  of  a  market  for 
a  half  million  dollars'  worth  of  goods  will  cause  a  loss  of  $2,000,000. 
I  will  ask  you  this:  If  the  displacing  of  the  product  of  half  a  million 
dollars'  worth  of  cotton-seed  oil  will  depreciate  your  stock  $2,000,000  in 
value,  what  do  you  think  will  happen  to  the  dairymen,  or  is  happening 
to  the  dairymen,  where  they  are  deprived  of  a  market  for  $20,000,000 
worth  pf  their  products?  Would  it  not  be  that  they  were  beaten  out  of 
$80,000,000  a  year? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  If  all  other  honest  occupations  were  eliminated,  your 
argument  would  be  all  right,  but  we  are  discussing  the  subject  of  its 
being  unfairly  done. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  On  the  other  hand,  why  not  apply  the  same  rule  to  the 
cotton  growers,  and  say  if  the  other  occupations  were  closed  to  them 
that  the  value  might  be  so  and  so? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS  If  it  were,  I  dare  say  cotton  would  go  to  25  cents 
a  pound — that  is,  if  you  were  to  forbid  the  production  of  wool  and  flax. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  easy  to  destroy  the  value 
of  butter  to  the  extent  of  $80,000,000  a  year  on  that  basis,  or  to 
decrease  the  price  of  cotton-seed  oil  $2,000,000. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  And  decrease  the  value  of  cattle  and  charge  the 
laboring  elements  of  the  country  that  much  more  than  they  ought  to 
pay. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  All  right.    That  is  what  I  have  been  trying  to  get  out. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  There  seems  a  very  much  larger  production  of 
cotton-seed  oil  than  enters  into  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine, 
and  a  vastly  larger  production  of  oleo  oil  than  enters  into  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine.  If  these  laws  restraining  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine, such  as  exist  in  32  States,  were  wiped  out,  and  no  action 
at  all  taken  by  either  State  or  local  governments,  would  it  be  pos- 
sible for  oleomargarine  to  occupy  the  whole  field  for  butter,  thereby 
totally  destroying  onej^f  the  chief  commercial  products  of  the  country? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  would  not,  on  account  of  the  variety  of  tastes. 
There  are  people  who  will  not  have  any  lard  but  lard  rendered  from 
hogs  raised  under  circumstances  that  they  themselves  know  about, 
people  who  will  not  buy  commercial  lard  at  all.  Equally  there  is  a 
large  consumption  of  dairy  butter  by  people  who  will  not  eat  any- 
thing else.  The  province  of  this  committee  is  to  put  itself  in  the 
position  of  a  purchaser  who  wants  to  know  what  he  purchases.  It  is 
not  a  question  of  elimination. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  My  question  was  based  upon  the  theory  that  the 
oleomargarine  product  has  now  become  so  perfect  an  imitation  of 
butter  that  people  would  be  unable  to  discern  whether  it  is  butter  or  not. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  But  I  do  not  think  you  would  have  any  difficulty 
Under  the  police  regulations  in  reference  to  that  matter.  We  have  the 
testimony  of  a  gentleman  from  Cincinnati  here,  who  is  a  State  official. 

Mr.  JELKE.  He  was  collector  of  internal  revenue. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  will  undertake  to  say  he  would  keep  track  of  that 
difficulty.  There  is  no  trouble  in  organizing  a  body  of  agents  or 
inspectors,  just  as  is  done  in  the  case  of  whisky  and  tobacco. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  About  four  years  ago  we  received  an  elegant 
specimen  of  oleomargarine  that  had  taken  the  first  prize  as  butter  at 
the  State  fair  of  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Yet  your  proposition  would  be  to  totally  eliminate  a 
food  product — 


OLEOMARGARINE.  523 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  was  inquiring  whether,  in  the  absence  of  any 
regulations,  State  or  local  or  national,  a  situation  is  not  possible,  owing 
to  the  volume  of  oleo  oil  and  cotton-seed  oil,  by  which  the  dairy  inter- 
ests of  the  country  might  be  totally  expunged  without  the  knowledge 
of  the  public. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  If  it  were  totally  expunged  by  competition  or  putting 
something  else  on  the  market  that  was  better,  by  means  of  processes 
that  affected  larger  interests,  by  furnishing  the  working  people  and  all 
other  people  a  better  article  at  a  cheaper  price,  is  not  that  the  standard 
by  which  American  commerce  has  always  been  judged?  I  absolutely 
feel  that  1  know  that  the  dairy  business  would  never  go  down;  that  it 
has  within  it  possibilities  which,  by  education  and  by  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  processes  of  feeding  and  of  utilizing  manures  from  the 
food  of  the  cattle,  butter  can  be  produced  excellently  and  cheaply  in  a 
way  to  keep  always  in  competition  with  the  other  products  of  the  same 
animals  exactly,  excepting  only  the  vegetable  part  that  goes  in  from 
cotton  seed  oil. 

Now,  what  you  want,  is  to  leave  that  competition  exactly  iree.  What 
ought  to  be  done  is  simply  to  require  that  these  things  shall  be  sold  on 
their  merits  and  without  any  misrepresentation,  to  which  the  gentleman 
acquiesces  promptly.  Nevertheless,  all  the  arguments  here  are  thatyou 
must  eliminate  butter,  you  must  eliminate  everything  that  gives  this 
product  a  fair  show  on  the  market.  If  you  eliminate  in  both  instances 
I  am  with  you,  and  I  think  all  the  people  are  with  you.  The  elimination 
of  coloring  matter  is  not  the  elimination  of  an  injurious  ingredient. 
But  if  you  cause  the  butter  people  to  put  a  label  on  their  packages  that 
it  is  butter,  and  they  renovate  it  to  give  it  a  taste  by  culture  and  growth 
of  bacteria,  and  give  it  an  artificial  color,  all  that  is  as  absolutely  decep- 
tive when  the  butter  is  put  on  the  market,  when  its  appearance  is 
changed,  when  its  taste  is  changed  so  as  to  represent  grass  butter,  as  it 
is  to  put  oleomargarine,  otherwise  wholesome,  on  the  market,  and  color 
it  yellow,  but  call  it  by  its  own  name.  Indeed,  there  is  no  deception  at 
all  in  that.  There  is  not  the  slightest  objection  to  the  regulation  of  the 
article,  to  the  making  of  everybody  stand  the  same  tests  and  make  the 
same  degree  of  honest  representations. 

It  is  absolutely  no  use  to  eliminate  something  that  is  simply  used 
for  the  purpose  of  making  that  article  more  attractive  to  the  purchaser 
without  doing  him  any  harm.  If  you  will  require  a  wholesome  article 
of  oleomargarine  to  be  made,  let  them  color  it  if  they  want  to.  Kequire 
them  to  put  on  the  formula  by  which  it  was  made,  if  you  desire,  just  as 
is  the  case  with  cotton-seed  oil,  and  then  do  exactly  the  same  with  the 
butter  business,  and  there  will  be  no  trouble  about  honest  competi- 
tion, and  neither  side  will  have  any  right  to  ask  that  the  other  side 
be  handicapped  with  an  embargo  of  a  great  big  tax,  or  of  being 
deprived  of  the  advantage  of  putting  a  good  appearance  on  their  goods 
for  the  market,  while  they  themselves  are  allowed  to  put  identically 
that  thing  on  the  market  under  circumstances  that  are  more  deceptive 
in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other.  Everybody  knows  that  oleomarga- 
rine is  colored;  but  not  a  great  number  of  people  know  that  butter 
which  is  alleged  to  be  spring  butter,  with  the  color  made  by  grass  or 
by  cotton  seed  meal,  actually  contains  that  thing  at  all.  The  color  is 
artificial  and  the  taste  is  artificial. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Will  the  gentleman  yield? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  speak  of  spring  butter  and  bacteria.  Do  you 
think  it  is  a  fraud  to  use  what  you  call  an  artificial  flavor  caused  by 
bacterial  development? 


OLEOMAKOAKINK. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  When  you  conceal  the  fraud  it  is. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  know  what  produces  the  flavor  in  butterine? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  is  said  to  be  bacteria. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Xothiug  but  bacteria.  All  flavor  is  produced  by 
bacteria. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  That  is  what  they  say.     I  am  not  a  chemist. 

Mr.  KNIG-HT.  In  giving  butter  a  spring  color,  in  what  way  is  that 
deceptive  ? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  In  the  fact  that  the  whole  truth  is  not  made  mani- 
fest on  the  package. 

Mr.  KNIG-HT.  Do  you  know  that  there  is  butter  without  bacteria 
in  it.' 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  do  not  know.  That  is  one  of  the  complaints  made 
by  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  about  oleomargarine,  that  there  were 
no  bacteria  in  it. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  understand  that  it  is  necessary  lor  the  oleo- 
margarine manufacturers  to  use  a  certain  proportion  of  milk  and  cream 
in  order  to  get  the  butter  bacteria  into  their  product,  thus  securing  the 
butter  taste.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  That  is  right. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  So  that  there  can  not  be  much  harm  in  the 
one  case  if  you  use  it  in  both  cases'? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Nor  is  there  any  harm  in  using  coloring  in  both. 
Yet  it  is  set  up  here  as  the  very  essence  of  fraud  that  it  is  done.  I  sup- 
pose there  are  many  people  who  would  object  to  the  use  of  grass  butter 
if  they  knew  that  it  contained  bacteria. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  were  speaking  of  a  certain  class  of 
worms  and  bugs  which  were  pretty  large  in  size. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  did  not  say  bugs. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  To  return  to  the  deception  in  coloring  butter  to  make 
it  look  like  spring  butter,  I  do  not  understand  where  the  deception  is. 
1  want  to  understand  where  you  think  the  deception  is.  Will  you 
please  explain? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  In  coloring  one  butter  to  make  it  look  like  another, 
butter  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes.     Where  is  the  deception? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  deception  lies  in  the  fact. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  know  that  spring  butter  is  yellow  naturally,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Yes. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  When  is  this  butter  colored  to  make  it  look  like  spring 
butter,  and  when  is  it  necessary? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Whenever  you  gather  it  up  in  barrels  at  the  various 
railroad  stations  throughout  the  country  and  take  it  and  renovate  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  When  is  it  white! 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  If  you  feed  the  cow  on  cotton  seed,  the  butter  will  be 
white;  that  is  also  true  with  many  other  kinds  of  food. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  that  is  not  spring  butter.  When  you  speak  of 
spring  butter  you  intend  to  convey  the  idea  of  butter  that  is  naturally 
yellow,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Butter  that  comes  from  cattle  that  have  been  fed  on 
spring  grass;  that  is  butter  that  is  most  attractive  and  that  most  people 
want  to  eat,  and  butter  that  most  people  feel,  as  a  matter  of  sentiment, 
is  the  purest. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  ask  another  question :  Do  you  know  at  what 
period  of  the  year  this  artificially  colored  butter  is  marketed  ?  Do  you 
understand  the  matter  sufficiently  to  know  when  the  butter  is  white? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  525 


Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  would  be  white  at  any  time  of  the  year  if  the  cow 
were  fed  on  food  stuff  that  would  produce  white  butter.  If  you  feed 
the  cow  on  cotton  seed,  the  butter  will  be  as  white  as  cotton. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  I  want  to  get  at  as  to  that  is  to  bring  out  this 
point  about  the  alleged  deception  in  color.  You  talk  about  the  coloring 
of  butter  as  being  deceptive.  Do  you  know  that  butter  is  colored  in 
the  winter  and  not  in  the  summer? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  No,  I  don't. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Then  I  will  say  for  your  information,  and  you  will  find 
out  that  it  is  true,  that  white  butter  comes  in  the  winter.  I  think  the 
oleomargarine  people  will  tell  you  that. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  believe  that  if  Mr.  Knight  will  wire  to  a  half  dozen  of 
the  leading  creamery  men  of  the  United  States  that  furnish  butter  for 
Washington  or  St.  Louis  he  will  find  that  they  use  artificial  coloring 
twelve  months  in  the  year. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  that  is  not  true. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  am  making  that  as  a  suggestion  to  the  committee.  If 
you  wish  to  controvert  that,  simply  send  your  telegrams. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  have  a  statement  which  has  been  filed  with  the  com- 
mittee on  that  point.  It  appears  that  I  can  not  bring  it  out  by  these 
questions,  and  I  would  like  to  make  a  statement  right  here,  so  that  it 
will  go  in  the  record. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  1  suggest  that  you  give  Mr.  Tompkins  a 
chance  to  finish  his  statement. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  yield  to  Mr.  Knight. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  For  a  short  statement. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  This  great  deception  that  is  claimed  in  the  practice  of 
coloring  butter  is  based  on  the  supposition  that  in  the  winter  time, 
when  butter  is  naturally  white,  people  are  deceived  into  buying  it, 
thinking  it  is  spring  butter  because  it  is  colored.  Now  look  at  the 
proposition.  You  come  down  here  in  December  or  January  and  buy 
some  butter;  it  is  highly  colored,  but  it  is  butter.  Do  you  buy  that 
butter  because  you  think  it  was  made  last  summer?  Do  you  want 
butter  made  last  summer? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  may  be  made  with  cotton-seed  meal,  which  is  per- 
fectly wholesome;  but  as  against  butter  made  from  cows  fed  on  swills, 
many  people  consider  it  poor  stuff  and  object  to  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  say  in  that  connection  that  I  have  been  in  the 
butter  trade  for  twelve  years,  and  I  have  never  heard  that  the  color  of 
butter  was  indicative  of  its  quality,  so  far  as  its  wholesomeness  is  con»- 
cerned.  Senator  Dolliver  has  had  experience  in  New  York  to  the  effect 
that  at  the  Waldorf-Astoria,  they  serve  you  with  butter  perfectly  white. 
I  was  in  England  for  the  Agricultural  Department  investigating  but- 
ter in  that  country,  and  they  served  me  there  with  white  butter  all  the 
time  I  was  there,  and  I  never  heard  anybody  complain  because  it  was 
white. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Why  do  they  ever  want  to  have  the  color  in  it? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  average  natural  color  of  butter  is  two-thirds  nor- 
mal. You  take  our  dairies  throughout  the  United  States,  and  one  cold 
wave  or  storm  will  change  the  color  of  the  butter.  One  cold  wave  that 
will  drive  the  cows  from  feeding  on  the  green  pastures  to  feeding  on 
hay  or  any  kind  of  grain  food  will  make  the  butter  white  this  week 
which  last  week  was  yellow.  That  is  true  of  any  place. 

The  tendency  of  all  commerce  is  toward  uniformity  in  everything. 
Butter  is  put  up  in  packages  or  in  tubs.  Everybody  puts  up  every- 
thing with  this  idea  of  uniformity  in  view.  That  is  what  the  public 


526  OLEOMARGARINE. 

demands.  It  does  not  make  any  difference  in  what  shape  the  packages 
are,  but  all  the  packages  must  be  uniform  in  order  to  be  merchantable. 
So  with  butter.  Butter  must  be  uniform  in  packages,  uniform  in  body, 
uniform  in  the  amount  of  salt,  uniform  in  flavor,  uniform  in  color.  The 
weather  conditions  may  be  such  that  one  day  will  make  white  butter 
and  another  day  will  make  yellow  butter.  I  tell  you  that  it  is  neces- 
sary that  we  do  something  to  keep  the  color  uniform.  When  I  tell  you 
that,  I  am  telling  you  what  I  know.  I  say  to  day  that  it  would  be 
better  for  the  butter  trade  if  butter  could  be  made  white  uniformly 
and  all  the  time,  rather  than  yellow  part  of  the  time  and  white  part  of 
the  time.  The  consumers  would  soon  become  used  to  that  uniformity. 
But  we  can  not  accomplish  that.  In  the  winter  time  butter  might  be 
nearly  white  if  the  color  is  kept  out  of  it.  If  oleomargarine  were  white, 
where  would  our  distinction  be?  In  this  bill  \ve  seek  a  distinction 
between  the  two  articles.  If  a  bill  could  be  passed  that  would  cause 
the  color  to  be  kept  out  of  butter  and  oleomargarine  in  the  winter 
time,  then  the  oleomargarine  men  would  go  to  their  retailers  and  tell 
them,  "  You  know  there  was  a  law  passed  at  the  last  Congress  which 
practically  forbids  coloring  butter."  Where  would  the  value  of  the 
law  be  that  would  bring  the  two  articles  down  to  the  same  basis  as 
regards  color?  It  is  true  that  would  be  an  advantage  in  the  summer 
time,  when  butter  is  cheap,  and  oleomargarine  has  no  market  to  amount 
to  anyhow.  But  when  it  came  to  the  winter  time  the  color  might  be 
taken  out,  and  the  two  articles  standing  side  by  side  would  show  the 
same  color,  and  then  fraud  would  be  practiced  just  the  same.  Every 
man  who  wanted  to  sell  oleomargarine  for  butter  would  convince  the 
consumer  that  it  was  natural  butter,  and  would  tell  him  that  color  had 
been  forbidden  by  law,  and  that  butter  is  white  in  winter. 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  is  a  fact  that  creamery  butter  is  colored  in  the  winter 
time. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  in  Kansas. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes.  Why?  Because  they  want  to  keep  it  uniform. 
Mr.  Tompkins's  point  is  this:  This  renovated  butter  is  reworked  and 
sold  on  the  market  as  creamery  butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  am  going  to  talk  about  that  renovated  butter  for 
five  minutes. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  suggest  that  Mr.  Toinpkins  be  allowed  to 
finish  his  statement  first. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  proposition  seems  to  reduce  itself,  even  after  the 
gentleman's  explanation,  to  one  thing — that  we  want  to  keep  them 
trom  putting  their  articles  of  manufacture  into  nice  and  attractive 
shape,  and  we  want  the  liberty  to  do  so  ourselves;  that  we  want  you 
to  fine  them  for  doing  it,  but  we  want  to  go  scot-free.  That  is  the 
whole  proposition.  That  is  my  interpretation  of  all  that  he  has  said. 

Now  as  to  the  question  of  who  is  affected  by  this  bill.  There  is  an 
enormous  number  of  small  farmers  and  many  of  them  have  been  per- 
suaded to  send  deputations  here  when  their  interests  practically  lie  on 
the  other  side,  or  only  on  the  side  of  improving  their  methods.  The 
fellow  who  sells  butter  to  dealers,  who,  in  turn  ship  it  to  the  dairymen, 
gets  very  little,  if  any,  more  for  his  butter  than  the  oleomargarine  peo- 
ple do  for  theirs.  The  number  of  that  class  of  people  who  make  a  kind 
of  butter  that  does  not  go  upon  the  market  in  these  attractive  shapes, 
is  very  large,  whereas  the  number  of  people  who  produce  the  high  kind 
of  butter,  either  naturally  on  the  farms  or  in  dairies  for  renovation,  are 
the  interested  parties,  and  are  comparatively  few.  So  that  the  great 
bulk  of  the  small  farmers  who  feel  that  they  are  getting  entirely  too 


OLEOMARGARINE.  527 

little  money  for  their  butter  would,  after  the  passage  of  this  bill,  not 
be  materially  improved,  for  the  reason  that  the  dairymen,  the  renovated 
butter  men,  or  other  people  who  buy  their  butter,  would  give  them  just 
about  the  same  price  as  they  now  get,  and  would  get  the  benefits  of 
this  taxation  and  a  curtailment  of  production  for  those  who  are  now 
enjoying  the  very  best  benefits  of  the  dairy  interests. 

After  them,  the  next  interest  that  is  affected  is  tbis  enormous  inter- 
est in  the  South  in  the  production  of  cotton  seed,  where,  by  means  of 
improved  processes  and  more  work,  they  have  learned  to  produce  beef 
steers,  and  are  producing  a  great  many  beef  steers,  and  are  fattening 
them  on  cotton  seed  oil  and  meal.  Their  interests  will  be  affected. 

But  the  largest  of  all  interests  to  be  affected  is  the  working  people 
of  the  country,  who  have  to  consume  the  product.  There,  is  no  ques- 
but  that,  if  the  propositions  relating  to  legislation  brought  here  by  the 
dairymen  is  carried  through,  the  prices  of  that  article  of  food  to  the 
people  will  be  the  biggest  part  of  the  tax. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Do  you  know  approximately  how  many  milch  cows 
there  are  in  the  United  States ! 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  do  not.  1  think  it  is  stated  somewhere  in  the  tes- 
timony. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Sixteen  millions. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  average  production  of  butter  per  cow  would  be 
how  much  per  week  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Eleven  millions  in  the  production  of  butter. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  is  the  average  production? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  am  not  a  dairyman.  These  other  gentlemen  will 
tell  you  that. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Say  4  pounds  per  week.  That  is  reasonable,  is  it 
not? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  suppose  so. 

Senator  ALLEN.  How  much  butter  will  be  produced  per  week? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Four  pounds  a  week,  and  fifty  two  times  that. 

Senator  ALLEN.  In  round  figures,  what  will  that  be? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  have  figured  it  at  about  1,500,000,000  pounds. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Divide  that  by  75,000,000,  the  population  of  the 
United  States,  and  what  would  the  result  be? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  About  18£  pounds  per  capita. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Do  you  think  we  ought  to  resort  to  a  substitute  for 
butter  under  those  circumstances? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  They  do  not  want  a  wholesome  article  of  food,  or  at 
least  they  do  not  want  to  pay  25  per  cent  more  for  that  food  than  they 
are  now  paying.  It  is  the  differential  quantities  of  food,  I  suppose, 
that  enter  into  the  prices  in  the  estimation  of  the  values  of  the  actual 
quantities  concerned.  They  are  by  no  means  a  measure  of  what  the 
increased  prices  would  be.  I  am  sure  that  the  working  people  would 
not  want  to  be  made  the  victims  of  any  law  which  materially  increased 
the  price  of  what  they  buy,  whether  butter  or  oleomargarine. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  If  you  knock  out  the  color  from  oleomarga- 
rine, would  not  the  working  people  be  able  to  buy  it  at  a  lower  price? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  If  the  color  was  knocked  out  of  butter,  would  they 
not  also  be  able  to  buy  it  at  a  lower  price?  Why  should  the  principle 
apply  to  one  and  not  the  other? 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  It  is  stated  here  by  butter  experts  that  for 
about  two  months  in  the  year  the  butter  is  naturally  colored,  that  you 
can  not  take  it  out. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  That  is  all  right.     Leave  it  in. 


•r)  2  8  ( > LK<  )M  A  K(  r  A  U I  N  K 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  butter  is  the  cheapest  at  that  time  of  the  year. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS    That  is  all  right,  too. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Some  time,  probably  before  the  1st  of  August,  the 
butter  begins  to  get  pale,  so  that  unless  the  cow  is  fed  other  than  food 
in  the  pasture  until  along  about  December,  the  butter  would  be  almost 
white,  having  but  a  slight  yellowish  tinge. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Suppose  it  should  turn  out,  as  some  of  the  testi- 
mony would  seem  to  indicate,  that  in  large  cities,  like  Washington, 
poor  people,  anxious  to  supply  their  table,  are  inveigled  by  the  appear- 
ance of  your  oleomargarine  goods  into  paying  the  better  prices  for  it 
under  the  impression  that  they  are  getting  butter,  whereas  in  point  ot 
fact  they  are  getting  an  article  which,  in  the  ordinary  state  of  the 
market,  ought  to  be  worth  very  much  less! 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Is  not  that  same  thing  applicable  to  white  butter  as 
well  as  to  colored  butter1?  The  principle  of  the  deception  in  the  one,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  quite  as  important  as  in  the  other. 

Senator  ALLEN.  One  is  butter  and  the  other  is  not,  and  the  consumer 
buys  the  oleomargarine  under  the  impression  that  it  is  butter.  It  is  a 
substitute  for  butter  now.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  it  is  now 
wholesome,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  It  is  a  wholesome  article  of  food.  That  is 
not  disputed. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  do  not  think  any  body  disputes  it  except  the  Secre- 
tary of  Agriculture. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  is  the  color  point  of  butter ! 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  think  butter  dealers  count  color  at  15  points. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Ten  points,  1  think. 

Senator  ALLEN.  So  far  as  I  am  individually  concerned,  I  do  not  care 
anything  about  the  color  of  butter. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  butter  is  perfectly  sweet  to  the  taste  it  is  immaterial 
about  the  color.  But  the  trouble  is  about  butter  that  is  not  perfectly 
pleasant  to  the  palate. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  know  that  butter  overscalded  on  the  farm  will  be 
almost  as  white  as  paper  and  at  the  same  time  very  palatable. 

Mr.  PAUL.  Allow  me  to  submit  the  standard  official  score  from  the 
twenty-sixth  report  of  the  Philadelphia  Produce  Exchange: 

FORM  B. — Standard  official  score. 

Points. 

Flavor 45 

Body 25 

Color 15 

Salting - 10 

General  appearance 5 

Total 100 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  is  the  estimated  value  of  colored  oleomar- 
garine ?  What  points  do  you  count? 

Mr.  JELKE.  We  have  never  made  an  estimate  of  those  points;  but 
I  should  think  it  worth  fully  as  much  to  us  as  to  the  butter  dealers. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  haven't  got  it  in  my  head  how  you  can  place 
a  label  on  a  package  of  oleomargarine,  showing  that  it  is  oleomargarine, 
and  then  expect  the  public  to  buy  it.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  have 
the  effect  of  destroying  the  industry. 

Mr.  JELKE.  That  would  be  practically  the  effect. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  would  put  us  in  a  situation  where  poor  people 
would  not  buy,  because  it  would  have  a  brand  of  condemnation,  as  it 
were. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  529 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  It  would  seein  to  indicate  that  it  was  univer- 
sally disreputable  in  itself. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Another  thing  about  it  is 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  If  you  put  up  an  article  that  a  man  is  ashamed 
to  have  on  his  table  it  seems  to  me  there  would  not  be  much  sale  for 
that  article. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Suppose  an  attempt  were  made  to  put  an  honest  man 
in  the  penitentiary  and  put  the  stripes  on  him,  don't  you  think  he 
would  object?  You  can  put  marks  upon  anything  in  this  world  that 
will  create  prejudice.  In  fact,  this  question  of  color  is  a  question  of 
sentiment  or  prejudice,  and  nothing  else. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  If  a  man  without  stripes  were  honest,  but  still 
fought  everybody  and  shunned  society,  it  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
there  was  something  constitutionally  defective  about  him. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  But  this  is  not  that  case.  You  propose,  in  the  case 
of  butter,  to  permit  them  to  make  this  very  distinction  you  talk  about, 
to  the  detriment  of  the  reputation  of  oleomargarine,  as  though  it  were 
marked  by  the  Government  exactly  as  a  man  would  be  marked  by 
stripes  in  the  penitentiary. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  want  to  answer  Senator  Dolliver.     In  Chicago  oleo- 
margarine has  the  stripes  of  condemnation  on  it,  in  consequence  of  the 
sentiment  created  by  a  partisan  press,  and  promulgated  throughout  the 
country,  and  the  statement  was  made  in  one  instance  before  the  com 
mittee,  but  afterwards  they  wanted  the  statement  stricken  out. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  would  be  the  objection  to  using  carrots  in  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  for  the  purpose  of  giving  it  color? 

Mr.  JELKE.  This  bill  would  not  allow  it. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  It  all  looks  to  me  as  if  the  oleomargarine  busi- 
ness, by  this  fight  against  State  and  United  States  laws,  had  invited 
a  lot  of  opprobrium,  which  I  believe  should  not  attach  to  the  business. 

Mr.  JELKE.  There  has  not  been  any  fight  against  United  States  laws, 
as  shown  in  the  statements  of  every  internal-revenue  collector  and  the 
Commissioner,  or  otherwise. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  But  we  had  on  our  table  yesterday  a  dozen 
packages  upon  which  the  United  States  law  had  been  dodged. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  If  you  make  a  law  of  any  kind  relating  to  butter  it 
will  be  dodged.  You  can  not  make  any  kind  of  a  law  that  will  not  be 
dodged  more  or  less.  We  have  the  testimony,  by  telegram,  of  an 
officer  of  the  United  States  Government  that  he  does  not  believe  that 
the  law  is  being  dodged  in  one  large  and  important  commercial  city  of 
the  Union.  There  is  no  reason  why  it  should  be  done  more  anywhere 
else  than  it  is  there.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  proper  regulation. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  recall  the  statement  of  Secretary  Wil- 
son yesterday,  I  think  it  was,  in  regard  to  the  conditions  of  Denmark, 
where  3£  per  cent  of  butter  substances  was  oleomargarine,  and  that  it 
was  uncolored? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Three  and  a  half  pounds  per  capita. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  And  that  they  found  a  ready  market  to  that 
extent  in  Denmark? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  public  taste  is  educated  easily.  I  ate  white  butter 
for  four  weeks  in  England,  and  in  fact  got  so  used  to  it  that  when  I 
returned  to  this  country  yellow  butter  was  repulsive. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  make  that  statement  to  show  that  it  is  not 
the  purpose  of  Congress  to  injure  the  oleomargarine  business  as  an 
oleomargarine  business. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Then  don't  put  any  bill  on  the  country  that  is  dis- 
criminating in  its  terms  and  in  favor  of  butter.    Kevise  and  reconstruct 
S.  Rep.  2043 34 


530  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  bill  so  as  to  make  it  a  good  bill  that  will  be  applicable  to  the  butter 
business  as  much  as  to  the  oleomargarine  business. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  would  happen  to  you  if  you  should  go  on  the 
streets  of  Washington  attired  in  woman's  clothes? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  do  not  see  the  relevancy  of  the  question.  The 
question  at  issue  is  whether  in  this  bill  there  is  an  unfair  discrimination 
against  one  product  and  in  favor  of  another;  not  with  reference  to 
whether  a  proper  and  legitimate  industry  ought  not  to  be  allowed  and 
all  legitimate  occupations  pursued  with  perfect  freedom.  I  can  not 
but  feel  that  the  bill  does  two  things :  It  discriminates  in  the  first  place 
in  favor  of  the  butter  business,  in  allowing  the  manufacturers  to  use 
processes  for  coloring  and  to  use  flavoring  compounds;  that  these 
things  are  permitted,  whether  they  are  right  or  wrong,  whether  the 
processes  are  clean  or  not  clean  ;  while,  in  the  case  of  oleomargarine, 
you  permit  absolutely  nothing,  even  though  the  article  is  perfectly 
wholesome.  The  distinction  between  right  and  wrong  should  be  made 
by  police  regulations,  and  there  are  ways  of  doing  that  without  dis- 
criminating in  favor  of  one  and  against  the  other. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  suppose  you  recognize  the  fact  that  almost  the 
entire  quantity  of  butter  consumed  on  the  farms  is  never  colored? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  do  not  think  it  is  colored. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  refer,  of  course,  to  the  butter  that  is  consumed  on 
the  farms. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  It  is  taken  in  its  natural  state. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  What  I  am  contending  is  that  both  butter  and  oleo- 
margarine ought  to  be  allowed  to  be  colored,  or  not,  according  to  taste, 
provided  that  the  color  is  not  injurious;  and  all  injurious  methods 
ought  to  be  forbidden  in  both  cases.  I  think  the  whole  matter  can  rest 
on  that  proposition,  and  I  thank  you  for  your  kind  attention. 

Senator  DOLLIVEB.  Let  me  say  that  1  find  a  natural  prejudice  in 
favor  of  butter,  and  a  very  strong  indisposition  to  do  any  real  damage 
to  a  legitimate  business  that  has  invested  capital.  I  am  extremely 
anxious  to  know  what  would  be  the  actual  effect  of  putting  oleomar 
garine  on  the  market  in  its  natural  condition  and  leaving  it  to  make 
its  way  without  a  continual  conflict  with  laws  and  prejudices  and  cus- 
toms in  thirty  two  different  States,  but  give  it  its  true  reputation,  and 
rescue  it,  if  possible,  from  the  general  disrepute  in  which  it  seems  to 
be,  so  far  as  has  been  shown  generally  by  the  testimony. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  will  say  here  that  if  the  Grout  bill  passes,  providing  a 
tax  of  10  per  cent,  it  will  kill  the  industry.  Last  winter  a  dealer  was 
arrested  in  Council  Bluffs,  Iowa,  through  the  efforts  of  the  dairy  com- 
missioner of  that  State,  and  we  had  to  go  to  the  expense  of  paying  for 
the  return  of  the  goods.  The  goods  were  absolutely  uncolored  except 
for  a  slight  grayish  tint.  We  defeated  that  case  in  the  police  court 
there.  Then  the  dairy  commissioner  presented  the  case  to  the  grand 
jury,  the  dealer  was  indicted,  and  we  had  to  defend  another  case 
brought  against  him  there.  A  dealer  in  Des  Moines  said,  "  I  am  going 
to  undertake  to  sell  butterine."  The  commissioner  said,  u  If  you  do  I 
will  prosecute  every  sale  you  make.  We-don't  want  it  sold  in  our  city, 
colored  or  uncolored." 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  State  of  Iowa  would  be  an  exceedingly  dis- 
couraging place  to  undertake  to  sell  anything  for  butter,  very  much  as 
a  man  would  not  carry  coals  to  Newcastle.  But  in  the  city  of  Chicago, 
where  there  is  a  great  demand  by  the  poor  people,  who  have  been 
spoken  of,  for  cheap  butter,  what  would  be  the  practical  difficulty  in 
selling  authenticated  oleomargarine  under  its  own  name  without  any 


OLEOMARGARINE.  531 

tendency  to  deceive  anybody  by  dealers,  if  the  article    were  left 
uncolored. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Your  proposition  is  that  all  grades  of  butter  be  made 
in  imitation  of  a  butter  that  costs  5  cents  a  pound,  because  it  certainly 
can  be  produced  for  people  who  want  it.  On  the  other  hand,  you  have 
forbidden  any  appearance  of  that  sort  of  thing  on  the  part  of  the  oleo- 
margarine people  themselves,  and  made  a  great  distinction.  The  two 
subjects  would  naturally  lap  if  you  let  them  both  alone  and  let  all  col- 
ors take  care  of  themselves  absolutely,  simply  forbidding  artificial 
colors  anywhere.  But  by  means  of  artificial  color  you  so  criticise  one 
product  in  connection  with  this  traffic  that  the  other  becomes  oppro- 
brious at  once. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  There  is  some  force  in  that,  but  I  would  rather 
take  the  testimony  as  to  the  grades  of  the  manufactured  article  called 
oleomargarine,  whose  business  methods  are  less  subject  to  criticism,  I 
think,  possibly,  than  any  other. 

Mr.  JKLKE.  I  think  those  reasons  have  been  stated  here  by  a  labor- 
ing man. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  That  story,  I  will  say  to  my  friend,  sounded  a 
little  fishy  to  me. 

Mr.  JELKE.  A  man  does  not  seek  here  to  display  the  quality  of  food 
on  his  table  three  times  a  day. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  assert  that  the  whole  aim  of  the  human  family 
seems  to  be  to  get  food  and  other  necessary  articles  as  cheaply  as  pos- 
sible. I  have  never  heard  it  was  a  reproach  that  cheap  goods  were  sat- 
isfactory to  the  purchaser. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Would  you  want  to  eat  uncolored  oleomargarine  on  your 
table? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  No;  I  have  a  constitutional  prejudice  against  it, 
I  must  confess. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Would  you  want  to  eat  white  butter? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Oh,  yes;  I  have  eaten  it  the  year  round,  and  in 
youth  I  churned  it.  As  Senator  Allen  says,  everybody  eats  white  butter 
on  the  farm. 

Mr.  JELKE.  As  soon  as  that  butter  is  shipped  to  the  city  it  is  colored. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  1  am  talking  about  my  own  taste. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  wholesale  dealers  in  Cincinnati  have  tried  to  put 
white  oleomargarine  on  the  market,  but  have  reported  to  me  that  it  was 
absolutely  impossible  to  do  it.  Mr.  Seither,  who  claims  to  be  and  I 
believe  is  the  oldest  man  in  that  business  in  this  country,  tells  me  he 
has  tried  it  from  time  to  time,  but  it  is  utterly  impossible;  that  the  peo- 
ple will  not  take  it.  He  has  not  told  me  the  reason  why,  but  I  think 
one  of  the  principal  reasons  is  the  fact  that  there  is  an  unwarranted 
sentiment  attached  to  it,  an  unwarranted  prejudice  against  it,  and  peo- 
ple do  not  want  to  put  it  on  their  tables  for  the  criticism  of  their 
neighbors.  You  know  how  a  neighboring  woman  will  say:  "Mrs. 
Smith  uses  oleo,"  etc. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Is  not  this  the  fact:  That  the  man  does  not  want  to 
put  oleomargarine  on  his  table  knowingly,  because  of  his  natural 
inclination  for  butter? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  No,  I  think  not.  I  was  telling  the  committee  about  an 
experience  I  had  during  the  holidays  on  one  occasion  where  I  found 
what  I  knew  to  be  oleomargarine  on  the  table  of  a  physician,  a  man 
amply  able  to  have  the  very  best.  I  called  attention  to  it,  and  brought 
blushes  to  his  wife's  face  at  the  same  time.  But  he  explained  it,  and 
said  it  was  all  right.  Why?  Because  he  liked  something  upon  which 


532  OLEOMARGARINE. 

he  could  depend ;  that  he  liked  it  better  than  the  country  butter  that 
he  could  get,  and  better  than  the  creamery  butter  that  he  could  get  in 
the  city  stores. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Have  you  studied  the  question  of  how  far  this 
continual  conflict  with  State  laws,  and  the  almost  universal  duplicity 
of  the  retail  trade  in  dealing  with  its  customers,  such  as  was  described 
here  yesterday  by  Mr.  Knight,  with  an  appearance  of  truth  and  veracity 
at  least — how  far  that  has  contributed  to  bring  the  whole  business  into 
disrepute  and  reproach  in  the  commercial  world? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  have  not  considered  that,  because  in  Cincinnati  we 
have  not  the  same  situation  which  Mr.  Knight  described  as  to  a  certain 
portion  only  of  Chicago. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  all  over  Chicago,  every  place. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  After  all,  that  is  largely  hearsay,  and  covers  only  a 
very  small  amount  of  business.  We  do  not  have  that  condition  in 
Cincinnati. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  say  all  over  Chicago? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir.  I  do  not  say  every  dealer,  but  I  will  say 
eight  out  of  ten  dealers  in  Chicago,  and  that  will  leave  about  200  honest 
dealers  in  the  city.  I  consider  that  90  per  cent  of  the  oleomargarine 
that  is  sold  in  Chicago  is  sold  as  butter. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  think  if  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  would  put 
up  these  goods  in  packages  so  that  retail  dealers  could  not  break  them 
that  would  settle  the  difficulty.  For  instance,  say  we  put  it  up  in 
2-pound  packages  for  the  retail  dealer,  with  the  word  ''oleomargarine" 
printed  on  the  wrapper. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Is  that  the  Wads  worth  bill? 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  is  practically  the  Wadsworth  bill. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  May  I  ask  why  he  could  not  break  the  package  just  as 
well  as  he  could  mark  the  package?  The  present  law  requires  it  to  be 
marked;  and  a  recent  ruling  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue 
plainly  and  explicitly  states  that  any  hiding  of  the  seal  or  stamp  is  a 
violation  of  the  law,  and  subjects  the  violator  to  a  punishment.  I  do 
not  know  how  much.  What  is  the  difference  between  laying  himself 
liable  to  a  fine  for  a  violation  of  the  stamp  law  as  it  is  now  and  laying 
himself  liable  to  a  fine  for  taking  off  the  stamp,  as  he  would  under  the 
Wadsworth  bill? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Increase  the  penalty. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  say  to  the  committee  now  that  in  my  judg- 
ment the  higher  the  penalty  the  less  possibility  there  is  of  enforcing 
the  law.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  procure  the  evidence,  and,  besides, 
to  fine  a  man  a  thousand  dollars  for  selling  15  cents'  worth  of  oleo- 
margarine for  butter  only  defeats  the  ends  of  justice. 

Senator  ALLEN.  It  seems  to  me  there  is  an  insuperable  objection  to 
your  proposition,  Mr.  Miller.  Suppose  the  retail  dealer  has  his  goods 
in  2  or  3  pound  packages,  with  the  wrapper  properly  stamped  with  the 
word  "butterine,"  what  is  to  hinder  him,  when  he  gets  100  or  200 
pounds,  from  taking  those  packages  down  cellar  and  taking  off  the 
wrapper,  and  running  the  stuff  through  the  machine  and  recasting  it 
and  selling  it  as  butter? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  do  not  think  he  would  do  so. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  That  kind  of  work  is  done  with  liquor  all  the  time. 

Mr. .  It  seems  to  rne  that  the  greatest  preventive  of  frauds  of 

this  kind  would  be  a  redaction  in  the  retail  dealer's  tax.  1  think  that 
would  reduce  99  per  cent  of  the  frauds. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  So  far  as  the  enforcement  of  the  law  by  the  Internal 


OLEOMARGARINE.  533 

Kevenue  Department  is  concerned  in  regard  to  branding,  or  in  regard 
to  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter,  there  is  not  the  slightest  interest 
in  that  Department  on  that  question.  I  am  speaking  from  experience. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Why  is  it  that  the  Government  has  an  interest 
in  the  enforcement  of  the  whisky  rax? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Whenever  a  man  finds  out  illicit  whisky,  he  attaches 
IK)  per  cent  of  the  tax;  but  in  the  case  of  oleomargarine  he  does  not 
attach  any  of  the  tax.  The  point  of  this  10  per  cent  tax  is  to  fix  it  so 
that  if  he  colors  it  in  imitation  of  butter,  he  will  have  to  pay  enough  to 
relatively  cost  the  retailer  a  figure  that  will  not  leave  him  an  incentive 
to  take  his  chances  under  State  laws.  The  minute  that  you  descend 
into  the  internal  revenue  with  a  tax  on  it  and  say  you  will  collect  a 
tax  of  10  cents  on  every  pound,  they  will  collect  it.  We  know  that. 
There  is  our  position  about  enforcement;  but  they  care  nothing  for  the 
police  measures. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  They  enforce  the  provisions  as  to  packages  of 
tobacco,  1  suppose,  as  to  size  and  weight? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  am  not  well  informed  on  tobacco  laws,  but  they 
require  a  stamp  of  so  much  on  every  package  containing  so  many 
pounds. 

Senator  DOLLIVER,  They  regulate  the  size  of  the  package. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  they  simply  require  that  that  amount  of  revenue 
goes  on. 

Senator  ALLEN.  They  require  an  adhesive  stamp. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  In  any  other  internal-revenue  article  there  is  abso- 
lutely nothing  in  the  shape  of  imitation  that  causes  people  to  throw  off 
the  stamp.  Wbat  incentive  has  a  man  to  remove  the  stamp  from  cigars 
or  tobacco?  None  at  all. 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  putting  of  a  stamp  upon  a  package  is  what  we 
want.  We  would  like  to  have  that  to  day. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  would  be  willing  to  put  on  a  regular  adhesive 
stamp  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  IHRIGH.  Does  Mr.  Knight  want  to  insinuate  that  our  revenue 
officers  throughout  the  country  do  not  attend  to  their  duties? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  and  in  confirmation  of  that  I  would  like  to  read 
from  the  Commissioner's  report. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  do  not  think  we  want  to  go  into  that. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  In  reply  to  Senator  Allen's  question,  I  think  I  can  em- 
phasize the  point  quite  a  good  deal.  He  wants  to  know  what  would 
prevent  the  taking  off  of  the  wrapper  and  remixing  the  stuff'  down  in  the 
cellar.  I  presented  here  yesterday,  as  the  Senator  will  recall,  a  list 
representing  1,083  consumers  who  buy  directly  from  one  of  my  clients, 
and  they  all  unite  in  asking  that  this  Grout  bill  be  defeated.  If  this 
bill  become  a  law,  they  will  be  unable  to  buy,  and  we  will  be  unable  to 
manufacture  for  them  or  to  export  any  of  the  product  colored. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  man  down  cellar  would  be  handling  the' oleo- 
margarine, and  the  margin  between  the  retail  price  of  it  and  the  price 
of  real  butter  would  be  practically  wiped  out,  and  there  would  be  no 
incentive  to  fraud. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  dishonest  retailer  would  have  If  cents  and  the  8 
cents  extra  tax  that  is  put  on,  which  would  make  9f  cents  extra  induce- 
ment for  fraud.  He  could  easily  take  the  uncolored  product  to  his  cel- 
lar and  work  it  over  with  the  proper  color.  There  is  no  law  to  prevent, 
and  a  ruling  of  the  Department  that  would  allow  him  to  do  so  with  safety. 


534  OLEUMAKCIAKINE. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Why  not  put  a  revenue  stamp  on  all  of  them,  whether 
butter  or  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  first  time  the  tax  is  attempted  to  be  evaded  you 
will  find  the  Department  down  on  him. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  We  insist  that  an  adhesive  stamp  on  each  package, 
with  a  heavy  penalty  attached  for  obliterating  it  or  taking  it  off.  will 
reduce  the  whole  fraudulent  business  to  boarding  houses  and  hotels. 
We  do  not  claim  anything  more.  All  we  want  for  the  manufacturers 
is  that  the  article  be  sold  absolutely  on  its  merits,  so  that  the  public 
will  know  what  it  is  getting  when  it  buys. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  In  regard  to  the  collection  of  the  tax,  I  may 
as  well  read  two  or  three  lines  from  the  House  report: 

Representative  BAILEY.  Do  you  think  that  this  law  is  enforced  as  well  as  any  other 
internal-revenue  law? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  With  respect  to  collecting  the  tax,  better;  with  respect  to 
the  incidental  matters,  so  far  as  the  pure-food  law  is  concerned,  no. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  was  the  Commissioner's  testimony  before  the 
House  committee. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  OF  MR.  C.  Y.  KNIGHT. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  The  committee  will  listen  to  Mr.  Knight,  for 
five  minutes,  I  think  he  said. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  To  begin  with,  I  will  say  that  when  process  butter  first 
came  out  and  was  being  manufactured  there  were,  as  Mr.  Jelke  read  yes- 
terday, a  great  many  patents  taken  out  for  its  making,  just  as  there 
were  when  they  first  made  olernargarine.  Those  same  patents  were 
brought  out  and  are  now  on  file  at  the  Patent  Office.  The  first  process 
butter  that  was  made  was  made  from  about  as  rank  stuff,  I  suppose,  as 
anybody  could  conceive  of.  The  goods  were  gathered  up  in  the  coun- 
try, as  they  are  now.  But  at  that  time  they  had  lain  a  much  longer 
time  than  is  now  customary.  It  was  then  the  custom  of  country  store- 
keepers to  keep  everything  lying  around  until  they  got  a  barrel  full 
before  sending  it  off.  But  to-day — I  am  telling  the  absolute  truth, 
without  prejudice  in  the  matter — in  the  system  of  manufacturing  proc- 
ess butter  it  is  not  permitted  to  get  out  of  condition,  with  rare  excep- 
tions. There  is  no  doubt,  as  has  been  stated  to  the  committee  by  a 
gentleman  from  Philadelphia,  that  there  is  some  awful  stuff  that  goes 
into  process  butter.  They  say  that  fat  is  not  easily  contaminated,  and 
when  it  is  once  contaminated  there  never  has  been  an  acid  discovered 
that  will  successfully  bring  it  back.  You  can  no  more  bring  back 
dairy  butter  to  its  original  sweet  condition  than  you  can  bring  back 
contaminated  fat  of  any  kind.  They  have  tried  it.  They  have  made 
experiments  with  alkalis,  etc.,  but  it  only  saponifies  the  fat,  makes  it 
soapy  and  fluffy,  and  takes  the  life  out,  so  that  it  is  soft  like  lard. 

The  butter  is  collected  and  taken  to  the  central  factories;  there 
it  is  melted  in  a  temperature  from  102  to  120°  in  large  tanks  by  the 
use  of  hot  water  and  steam.  Those  vats  are  placed  on  a  slant;  they 
are  crisscrossed  with  pipes  with  hot  water  running  through  them,  and 
the  fat  inelts  and  is  drawn  off  into  a  vat.  That  fat  is  left  there  in  the 
vat  so  that  the  casein  and  water  may  be  precipitated,  leaving  a  clear 
amber  oil  on  top,  and  taking  the  casein  and  water  and  salt  out  under- 
neath. That  water  and  salt  and  casein  are  drawn  oft'  from  the  bot- 
tom, leaving  the  clear  oil  on  top.  There  are  various  methods  for  get- 
ting out  what  may  remain  in  the  shape  of  casein  that  does  not  pre- 
cipitate immediately.  The  process  used  to  be  to  leave  that  fat  at  a 


OLEOMARGARINE.  535 

temperature  of  about  102  aiid  108°  for  two  or  three  days,  and  then 
whatever  residue  would  not  precipitate  was  drawn  from  the  top 
instead  of  the  bottom  to  get  the  fat  from  the  top.  They  have  various 
methods  now  for  precipitating  the  casein,  but  those  are  business  secrets. 
They  are  mechanical,  not  involving  the  use  of  acids  at  all.  It  is  those 
matters  that  the  manufacturers  of  process  butter  keep  secret — the 
methods  of  finally  precipitating  what  remains  of  the  casein  in  the 
body  of  the  oil.  I  have  been  through  a  great  many  factories  in  the 
United  States,  and  seen  their  methods,  one  after  the  other,  and  was 
offered  $5,000  for  a  description  of  the  method  of  clarifying  the  oil 
finally.  Of  course,  it  was  given  to  me  in  confidence,  and  I  would  as 
soon  steal  $5,000  from  a  man  as  I  would  give  away  his  secret.  But  I 
give  you  my  word  of  honor  that  there  is  no  acid  used  in  that  clarifica- 
tion. It  is  simply  a  mechanical  method  which  has  been  discovered, 
the  construction  of  which  probably  cost  $5,000  to  $6,000.  It  is  merely 
a  centrifugal  arrangement,  but  that  centrifugal  arraugment  has  been 
studied  for  years  on  the  part  of  these  people.  But  no  acid  is  used  for 
that  purpose,  so  far  as  I  know.  It  was  always  left  for  gravity  to  per- 
form that  function. 

After  that  oil  is  clarified  it  is  taken  out  and  put  into  what  is  called 
an  air-blast  churn.  I  have  forgotten  what  they  call  those  things.  But 
it  is  a  conical- shaped  arrangement,  holding  probably  200  or  300  gallons 
of  that  oil,  and  with  an  air  blast  or  an  air  pipe  coming  from  the  bottom. 
They  take,  say,  100  gallons  of  milk  which  has  been  ripened,  and  then 
they  put  in  an  emulsion  of  500  gallons  of  butter  oil.  Then  the  air  is 
turned  on  at  a  pressure  of  108  to  110  degrees,  so  as  not  to  cool  the 
liquid  oil.  That  makes  the  most  nearly  perfect  emulsion.  They  have 
never  been  able  to  find  so  perfect  an  emulsion  as  the  air  blast.  That 
mixes  the  butter  oil  and  emulsion  together  and  puts  back  into  the  but- 
ter the  casein  and  moisture  taken  out  by  the  precipitation  as  it  was 
before*  melting. 

After  it  is  blown  five  or  ten  minutes  with  that  air,  so  that  the  milk 
and  oil  are  thoroughly  mixed,  it  is  dropped  suddenly  into  ice  water  in 
tanks.  The  object  of  that  ice  is  to  bring  back  the  grain  into  the  but- 
ter, because  the  minute  it  was  melted  it  lost  its  grain  and  looked  like 
lard.  In  that  condition  it  could  never  go  on  the  market  at  all,  any 
more  than  oleomargarine  would.  So  the  grain  is  put  back.  When  it 
is  dropped  into  the  water  it  congeals  so  quickly  that  the  particles  of 
milk  and  oil  practically  stick  together.  If  any  of  you  have  been  in  a 
shot  tower  and  seen  how  they  drop  lead  from  the  top  of  the  tower  into 
the  bottom  of  the  tank,  that  is  the  same  process  that  is  used  here.  The 
globules  of  milk  congeal.  Then  they  skim  it  off,  take  out,  salt,  and 
work  it.  It  does  not  need  to  be  churned.  It  has  been  churned  in  that 
conical-shaped  concern. 

After  that  it  is  salted  and  worked,  and  put  up  just  as  ordinary  but- 
ter is. 

I  would  say,  in  this  connection,  that  the  butter  that  is  used  in  mak- 
ing that  process  butter  is  of  various  grades.  They  have  inspectors, 
who  take  out  the  different  grades  of  butter  and  classify  it,  and  they 
make  different  grades  of  process  butter  from  the  different  grades  of 
dairy  butter.  With  the  finest  grades  of  process  butter  they  take  the 
finest  country  butter,  and  they  classify  it  into  grades — first,  second, 
and  third  grades.  These  butters  that  come  in  are  of  all  shapes  and 
colors.  But  they  are  all  butters  that  are  largely  made  in  the  summer 
time,  so  that  they  are  largely  of  a  natural  color,  and  very  little  color  is 
required  to  bring  them  up  to  the  natural  color,  because  the  butter  from 


which  it  is  made  is  of  the  natural  color,  or  it  has  been  artificially  colored 
by  the  producer. 

So  that  you  see  an  auticolor  law  can  not  be  made  to  apply  to  an 
article,  which  already  has  a  natural  color,  that  is  put  on  the  market. 
This  process  butter  largely  goes  on  the  market  in  the  winter.  The 
stock  is  very  largely  bought  up  in  the  summer,  frozen,  and  stored  away. 
At  the  same  time  there  is  a  good  deal  of  winter  butter.  In  the  winter 
there  are  a  good  many  people  who  ship  their  butter  by  rail,  and  there 
is  a  good  deal  of  butter  that  is  not  shipped  in  the  summer  because  the 
higher  prices  of  butter  in  the  winter  makes  it  desirable  for  people  who 
do  not  make  it  in  the  summer  to  make  it  in  the  winter  in  certain  sections 
of  the  country. 

I  am  not  here  to  tell  you  that  no  undesirable  butter  goes  into  pro< 
butter,  because  I  know  there  is.     I  know  there  is  some  rank  butter  put 
into  it.    But  the  grades  are  classified  as  I  have  stated. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  What  about  its  keeping! 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  think  there  is  a  great  deal  of  difference 
between  the  process  and  the  other  butters  in  their  keeping  qualities. 
I  have  not  discovered  that  there  is.  There  was  a  time,  for  instance, 
in  the  making  of  process  butter  when  the  oil  was  kept  three  days  in 
the  tank  to  precipitate  the  brine. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Have  you  any  means  of  knowing  what  relation  the 
quantity  of  process  butter  bears  to  the  whole  quantity  of  butter  ' 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  About  three  fourths  of  1  per  cent.  The  amount  of 
process  butter  last  year  was  between  9,000,000  and  10,000,000  pounds. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  How  does  it  sell  on  the  market? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  value  of  process  butter  is  based  entirely  upon  the 
value  of  the  materials  that  enter  into  it.  There  is  some  margin,  but  I 
do  not  know  how  much;  about  3  or  4  cents  a  pound  1  should  judge. 
There  is  a  considerable  loss  between  the  stock  from  which  process  but- 
ter is  made  and  the  manufactured  article  for  this  reason,  that  the 
country  butter  usually  contains  a  great  amount  of  moisture  and  over- 
loss,  as  we  call  it,  and,  then,  butter  that  goes  on  the  market  is  contami- 
nated to  some  extent;  so  that  where  the  original  butter  has  S."i  per  cent 
of  butter  oil  the  butter  by  which  process  bitter  is  made  will  contain 
only  about  80  per  cent,  so  that  there  is  a  loss  of  5  per  cent  between  the 
two  articles  in  the  way  of  shrinkage. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Is  the  final  product  of  the  highest  grail e  sub- 
stantially equal,  in  market  value  and  in  the  public  estimation,  to  the 
creamery  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  is  a  difference  in  price  of  -  to  4  cents  a  pound 
usually. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Are  dealers  deceived  in  it! 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  1  do  not  believe  that  jobbers  are  deceived  in  it  at  all, 
any  more  than  they  are  in  oleomargarine.  I  believe  that  every  jobber 
knows  every  process  butter  manufactured  in  the  Tinted  States.  I 
believe  that  to  be  true.  1  do  not  believe  that  there  is  one  pound  of 
process  butter  sold  as  process  butter  to  where  there  are  three  01  four 
pounds  sold  as  butter  alone.  There  has  never  been  a  distinction  made 
in  the  general  market  between  butter  and  butter.  There  are  creamery 
butter,  dairy  butter,  and  different  butters,  but  the  consumer  does  not 
usually  make  the  distinction.  He  goes  and  asks  tor  butter,  and  if 
butter  is  shown  him  he  buys  it  largely  by  his  own  judgment  and  taste. 
You  never  can  get  the  melted  taste  out  of  that  butter.  After  butter  is 
oune  melted  it  has  that  old  taste,  and  an  expert  can  always  tell  it. 

.  I  presented  the  other  day  a  letter  from  John  F.  Dab- 


U(\V,  Of   Danville,   111.,  \\h«»    '-.fated    lli.ii     he    sold    about,   ,'*,000  pound     «,l 
i  :i  i  ic  id   In  it  In    oil  hand,  I  lie  Kind   I  li;t,l,  i;-:  u  -ed   in   in. 1 1.  in;-    p  !«•«•«•     .  I  nil  I  (  i 

That  represents  the  amount  m  <>m-<  r.onni  \  oi  tiimoi-.    n  i,<   ;..iiii.-j.-,i 

ii|i  lli.il   amount    in  one  counl\    UK-  ftVerftge   amount,   .••.il.li«-n-«|    n|,  in    i.l.i- 

\\  imic  state,  of  100  .-oil  n  i  H-    \\  MI  i  id  probably  anonnt  to  500^000  pouodfi 

Mr.  KM'.HT.  Thai  ll  no  ciilc.rioii  at  all,  because  lie  may  ha  -.  «•  ..  big 
hade  in  thai  county,  and  the  other  roiinli.-  .  many  of  then,  i,ii;-hl 
produce  a  \  ei  \  small  amount  of  I  hat,  Kind  ot  but  lc,r.  |{esid<  .,  (j,c 

vrhole  amount  of  all  the  butter  gathered  up  m  MM-  connin-  -,  oi  iiimoi-. 

does  not  go  into  process  buUer.      They   make  I  hen    -,e|cc,l  ions. 

.Mr.  SrKI.M. KK.    Do  the  ei camei  ic     take  any  ol    this? 

.Mr.  KINK;  JIT.  No;   they  do  not,  do  that  at,  Jill — no!  one  in  ;t  Lhonha.nd. 

Seiialor  ALU-..V    Mur.li  :>i    it  irt  WOrUe<|  o\er  hy  deale,iH. 

Mr.  KNKIIIT.  Thai  may   he  Inn-. 

Mi-.  JKI.KK.  In  the  HJile.  of  this  process  butter  in  the  n-ia.il  deale.i 
deceived  or  is  the.  consumer  deceived  ? 

Mr.  KNK'iHT.  That,  m  someUiin^  Mial,  1  Miink  yon  will  luive  to  invusti- 
^at<-  lo  find  oul.  I  \\ant,  to  sa\,  in  this  r.n initiation  and  in  eonnechon 
\\ilh  this  bill,  that  I  do  l>elic\e  con  nnn-i  ,  are  Homehmc.  d<-c,(  , 
and  1  \sill  say  frequently — led  to  helievc  I  hat,  flu:-  pnn^ss  butter  is 
creamery  butter.  Tluit  irt  one,  ol  t,he,  things  lhal.  when  1,he,  < ,  n»ut,  bill 
is  passed  and  oleomai  j^anne  is  ;i  distinct .  prodne.l.  from  Imt.ter,  will  tend 
to  t.aKe  awa\  our  Ini^inesH.  1  f  1  hey  can  ^o  oul,  a  nd  con  vin<-,<i  the  puUir, 
that  .by  uetlin^  1  his  ole,oiliai-.'ai  ine  I  hey  have,  an  ah-olulejy  pun-,  piod 
net  and  that  there  is  no  danger  of  KeU.iiitf  any  ranejd  bnM.«r  or  any- 
thing that  is  worked  over,  they  have,  got  to  eonvnice  Uie  public,  and 
prove,  to  the,  public,  that,  when  thc,y  are,  buying  pure,  butter  they  are 
getting  something  which  is  wholesome. 

Senator  DOLLIVKK.  Von  agree  with  Secretary  Wilwon  when  he 
says 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  agree  with  the  Secretary  when  he  says  that  some- 
thing has  got  to  be  done.  The  antie.olor  Jaw  does  not  apply  to  it. 
because  it  is  already  colored  by  nature.  How  are  you  going  to  do  it? 
We  can  not  make  a  color  distinction.  1  will  nay  that  the  dairy  inter- 
are,  in  favor  of  any  kind  of  an  infernal-revenue  law  that  will  reach 
it.  We  would  be  in  favor  of  an  anticolor  law  if  the  article  were  not 
already  colored.  These  gentlemen  here  are  howling  about  a  10  cent 
tax.  They  know  that  if  there  was  a  10  cent  tax  put  on  colon-d  butter 
it  would  exclude  all  process  butter. 

Mr.  MiLij;it.  We  do  not  believe  in  unjust  taxation  of  any  kind. 

Mr.  SCHKLL.   Where  is  the  most  of  this  process  butter  made  ' 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  are  factories  in  Philadelphia  and  in  differ* -nt. 
parts  of  Pennsylvania;  there  are  one  or  two  in  Baltimore,  five  or  six 
in  Chicago,  two  or  three  or  four  in  Ohio,  a  few  in  Michigan,  one,  or  two 
in  Iowa,  one  in  Minnesota,  some  in  Nebraska,  and  some  in  Kansas. 

Mr.  MILLER,   is  it  not  a  fact  that  most  of  it  is  made  in  Klgin,  111.! 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  there  is  only  one  factory  there.  It  has  developed 
there  a  great  deal  in  the  last  few  years  because  the  whole  process  has 
developed  in  that  time. 

Mr.  MILLEE.  I  know  that  Weaver  &  Barber,  of  Chicago,  scour  our 
country. 

Senator  DOLLIVEK.   I  suppose  thai  the  general  product.. 
ery  butter  has  left  the  average  poor  farmer  without,  any  market. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  that  is  true.  That  is  a  fact,  i  do  not  put  this  out 
as  an  argument  in  favor  of  butter.  It  is  a  fact  that,  the  manufacture  of 
process  butter  has  increased  the  price  of  the  farmers'  butter  practically 


538  OLEOMARGARINE. 

almost  100  per  cent.  It  is  worth  from  5  to  .1.0  cents  a  pound  more  than 
it  was.  It  is  a  fact  also  that  the  people  used  to  eat  this  butter  wit  h  the 
filth  in  it,  whereas  now  the  filth  is  taken  out  of  it7  if  it  ever  was  in  it; 
but  whatever  filth  was  in  it  used  to  be  consumed. 

Mr.  JELKE.  It  is  made  on  the  farm. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  point  to  another  conclusion.  I  think  you  will 
all  agree  that  butter  made  under  any  kind  of  favorable  circumstances, 
where  the  cows  have  eaten  the  natural  grass  or  prepared  food,  is  better 
than  butter  that  is  left  lying  around  and  has  become  rancid  and  then 
sent  to  Chicago  to  be  made  into  oleomargarine  in  the  winter.  Every 
year  the  retail  dealer  gets  out  his  oleomargarine  license,  and  his  cus- 
tomers, who  have  been  buying  butter  all  the  time,  suddenly  change 
their  minds,  and  he  consequently  does  not  buy  any  more  butter  at  all. 
Our  butter  piles  in  our  cellars,  stands  there  three  or  four  weeks,  depre- 
ciating from  3  to  5  cents  on  every  pound;  there  is  no  sale  for  it.  There 
is  where  there  is  a  tremendous  loss  to  the  dairymen. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  That  is  a  very  interesting  statement. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  think  I  will  have  to  tell  you  how  I  happened  to  g6 
into  the  factories.  Mr.  Pierson,  of  the  Agricultural  Department,  came 
put  West  and  asked  the  manufacturers  of  process  butter  to  let  him 
inspect  their  plants.  The  process-butter  makers  did  not  want  him  to 
inspect  their  plants,  for  the  reason  that  he  was  publishing  bulletins  of 
everything  he  had  got  hold  of,  and  they  did  not  want  their  secret  in 
regard  to  their  machinery  to  get  out.  But  I  was  told  that  I  might  go 
through  the  factories  at  any  time  I  wanted  to,  and  that  I  might  take  all 
the  time  I  wanted  to.  So  I  have  been  through  the  factories  whenever  I 
have  wanted  to.  I  have  been  through  one  of  them  a  dozen  times.  I  have 
got  every  process 5  I  know  every  temperature  that  oil  is  subjected  to;  I 
know  the  details  of  every  piece  of  machinery;  I  know  every  churn;  I 
have  seen  the  butter  when  it  was  put  in  there;  I  know  everything 
from  A  to  Z.  I  know  it  sufficiently  so  that  I  was  offered  $5,000  for  my 
information  by  a  man  who  knew  that  that  concern  was  making  the 
finest  kind  of  process  butter  in  the  country.  I  have  been  in  other 
process  factories  besides  that  one. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Have  you  any  means  to  suggest  by  which  fraud  upon 
consumers  can  be  prevented  in  the  sale  to  them  of  process  butter  when 
they  think  they  are  buying  creamery  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  great  trouble  so  far  has  been  that  the  chemists 
have  been  unable  to  discern  in  their  analyses  the  difference  between 
process  butter  and  creamery  butter  or  any  other  kind.  Butter  is  but 
ter.  The  same  kind  of  casein  enters  into  both,  the  same  kind  of  fat, 
the  same  kind  of  acid,  the  same  amount  of  salt. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Are  these  bacteria  present? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Those  worms  occur  in  everything.  Bacteria  is  life. 
Everything  contains  bacteria.  Without  bacteria  there  would  be  no 
flavor  in  anything.  This  culture  you  talk  about,  the  more  you  have  the 
better  it  is.  Bacteria  are  used  in  the  process  of  making  process  butter 
to  give  it  an  absolutely  pure  flavor,  notwithstanding  it  is  oftentimes  an 
artificial  flavor.  It  is  introduced  there  to  give  a  uniformed  flavor;  and 
at  the  same  time  it  is  a  mild  flavor.  It  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
that. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  If  the  people  knew  that,  they  would  have  as  much 
prejudice  against  it  as  they  would  have  against  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  think  so,  because  all  fermentation  is  a  growth 
of  bacteria.  Let  me  explain  to  you  about  this,  gentlemen.  There  are 
bacteria  and  bacteria,  all  kinds  of  bacteria.  Bacteria  are  in  the  air. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  539 

Bacteria  are  in  milk.  They  enter  the  milk  from  the  air  as  soon  as  it 
comes  from  the  cow,  and  start  a  growth  which  predominates  until  the 
milk  comes  up  to  that  state  of  ripeness  when  it  is  lit  to  churn.  The 
idea  of  pure  culture  is  that  we  get  normal  bacteria,  and  we  try  to  keep 
all  others  out  of  that  milk.  For  instance,  milk  may  be  Pasteurized,  or 
taken  to  the  creamery  and  skimmed  before  there  is  any  bacteriological 
development  in  there.  Then  the  bacteria  have  such  strength  that  they 
multiply  and  occupy  the  whole  field  and  crowd  out  all  others,  and  in 
that  way  we  get  a  desirable  flavor  that  is  pleasant  and  uniform.  The 
best  plan  of  producing  flavor  is  to  take  the  milk  of  a  new  cow,  Pasteur- 
ize it,  sterilize  it,  and  use  that  as  a  basis  for  the  growth  of  this  culture; 
put  it  in  there  because  there  are  no  other  bacteria  then  in  there;  and 
then  you  cultivate  your  germ;  then  churn  it  into  the  newly  skimmed 
cream,  and  that  goes  through  it  and  starts  the  bacterial  growth  which 
makes  it  of  uniform  flavor.  That  process  is  used  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  a  uniform  flavor,  as  uniformity  is  desirable  in  all  other  things. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  How  are  bacteria  cultivated  in  Limburger 
cheese  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  a  bacterial  growth. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Of  course,  I  understand  that,  but  I  ask  the 
question  seriously. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  It  certainly  is  not  microscopic. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  is  parallel  with  oleomargarine.  Everybody  admits 
that  it  is  wholesome.  I  quite  agree  that  it  is  not  unwholesome.  But  I 
think  that  if  the  public  had  to  be  informed  that  it  is  necessary  for  but- 
ter to  be  impregnated  with  bacteria  the  public  would  be  prejudiced 
against  that  butter.  We  need  a  process  of  bacterial  purification. 
Colonel  Waring,  of  New  York,  has  invented  such  a  process.  I  have 
seen  him  take  the  worst  sort  of  sewage  and  put  it  through  his  purify- 
ing process,  and  as  the  water  came  out  at  the  other  end  the  residual 
product  was  perfectly  pure,  and  I  have  seen  him  drink  it  without  preju- 
dice, but  I  think  the  public  would  object  to  that.  At  the  same  time 
that  water,  after  its  purification  by  his  process,  is  better  water  than  the 
cities  furnish,  provided  the  process  be  carried  far  enough.  I  acknowl- 
edge it  is  offensive  to  see  a  man  drink  it,  much  less  drink  it  yourself. 
Prejudices  apply  to  all  these  processes,  even  if  the  result  obtained  is 
perfect.  It  is  nothing  but  prejudice.  But  in  another  case  where  that 
sentiment  and  prejudice  exist,  if  you  make  a  requirement  against  one 
you  ought  to  make  it  against  the  other. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Let  me  tell  you  something  about  these  bacteria,  which 
you  say  are  an  artificial  culture.  It  is  not  necessary  to  use  them. 
Exactly  the  same  results  can  be  obtained  from  skimmed  milk.  There 
is  not  one  creamery  in  a  hundred  that  uses  them. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  That  might  do  in  making  butter,  but  they  do  use  it, 
and  there  is  a  prejudice  against  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  take  issue  on  that,  because  I  am  in  the  butter 
trade  and  am  the  publisher  of  a  paper  devoted  to  the  business.  I  do 
not  believe  there  is  any  such  prejudice.  The  amount  of  the  artificial 
culture  is  merely  a  drop  in  a  tincupful. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  How  many  bacteria  are  there  in  a  drop  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  might  be  4,000,000.  There  is  nothing  there  but 
the  milk.  That  drop  starts  the  whole  thing  and  the  rest  is  develop- 
ment. 

The  committee  adjourned  until  Saturday,  January  12, 1901,  at  10,30 
a.m. 


540  OLEOMARGARINE. 

COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE  AND  FORESTRY, 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 
Washington,  D.  (7.,  January  12, 1901. 
The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  in. 

Present:  Senators  Proctor  (chairman),  Money,  Dolliver,  Bate,  and 
Hansbrough;  also,  Charles  Y.  Knight,  secretary  National  Dairy  Union; 
Mr.  Schell,  Mr.  Miller,  Mr.  Jelke,  and  others. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  is  anybody  who  desires  to  go  on  this  morn- 
ing, he  may  proceed. 

STATEMENT  OF  GEORGE  E.  PAUL,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Mr.  PAUL.  Gentlemen,  to  start  with,  I  will  have  to  give  my  experience 
as  a  dealer  in  butter,  oleomargarine,  etc.,  from  the  time  that  I  started 
in  business  in  Philadelphia.  I  started  in  the  produce  business  in  Phil- 
adelphia in  1871.  At  that  time,  or  prior  to  that,  I  was  a  merchant  in 
Ohio,  shipping  large  quantities  of  butter  to  Philadelphia.  That  quality 
of  butter  was  eagerly  sought  after  in  the  Philadelphia  market  at  that 
time.  The  Philadelphia  market  was  a  peculiar  market,  accepting  rolls 
and  prints  as  the  principal  butter.  The  different  colored  butter  that 
was  coming  onto  the  market  at  that  time  was  from  fresh  milked  cows, 
and  also  from  green-fed  cattle.  Other  cattle  that  were  not  fed  so  well 
produced  white  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  had  several  grades  of  color? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  MONEY.  In  natural  butter? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Natural  butter;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  MONEY.  Which  shade  was  the  dominant  color? 

Mr.  PAUL.  White. 

Senator  MONEY.  White  was  the  predominant  shade? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  MONEY.  White  would  be  called  the  color  of  butter,  then? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir;  and  that  butter  was  eagerly  sought  after  in  that 
time  of  the  year  back  in  the  early  seventies.  Of  course  later  on  we 
had  a  butter  produced  in  New  York  State  that  was  held  from  summer 
until  spring,  which  was  pretty  highly  colored,  owing  to  the  grass-fed 
cattle.  That  butter  is  practically  out  of  the  market  at  the  present 
time,  owing  to  the  existence  of  creameries.  Solid  packed  butter,  which 
is  the  predominant  butter  ot  the  West,  was  never  sought  after  in  the 
Philadelphia  markets,  and  yet  to  this  day  prints  and  rolls  are  the  prin- 
cipal butter  in  Philadelphia.  Nearby  butter  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Philadelphia  is  the  very  tine  butter  made  in  the  United  States.  We 
do  not  except  anything. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  do  you  mean  by  prints  and  rolls? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Prints  are  1-pound  packages,  which  were  put  up  by  the 
farmers'  wives,  and  they  used  to  bring  them  into  the  market  and  sell 
them  to  the  different  gentlemen  for  their  fine  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  are  the  rolls? 

Mr.  PAUL.  One  pound,  2-pound — any  sized  roll  of  country  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  It  is  the  same  butter? 

Mr.  PAUL.  The  same  butter;  yes,  sir.  This  grade  of  butter  con- 
tinued coming  along  to  the  market  for  quite  a  while;  but  on  account  of 
a  proportion  of  poor  butter  from  the  West  coming  in  there,  it  became 
difficult  to  dispose  of  this  butter  at  a  profit  to  the  people  who  purchased 
it.  On  the  top  of  the  packages  there  would  probably  be  good  rolls, 
and  in  the  bottom  and  in  the  center  there  would  be  white,  cheesy,  and 


OLEOMARGARINE.  541 

milky  rolls  which  lost  to  the  purchaser  more  than  they  made  of  good 
butter  that  was  on  top  of  the  packages. 

In  the  spring  of  the  year,  as  I  have  been  saying,  we  had  this  Itfew 
York  State  butter,  that  had  been  speculated  in  and  held  over,  and  the 
holding  of  that  butter  had  produced  a  peculiar  flavor.  We  used  to  call 
it  a  fishy  flavor.  About  the  years  1877,  1878,  or  1879  oleomargarine 
was  introduced  in  the  market.  It  was  uniform  in  color,  uniform  in  size 
of  packages,  and  uniform  in  rolls.  It  was  very  nice,  fine  looking  goods, 
sweet  and  fresh  as  the  summer-made  goods.  It  drove  that  class  of 
butter  out  of  the  market;  and  I  may  say  that  class  of  butter  was  finally 
driven  into  the  creameries  that  are  in  existence  at  the  present  time. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  do  not  want  to  interrupt  you,  so  as  to  cause  you 
to  lose  the  thread  of  your  argument,  but  I  want  information  on  this 
subject.  What  became  of  that  butter?  You  say  it  was  driven  out  of 
the  market.  Where  did  it  go? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Those  small  dairies  were  driven  into  the  creameries. 
They  delivered  the  milk  to  the  creameries. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  material  went  into  the  creameries? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir;  the  milk  went  into  the  creameries.  The  intro- 
duction of  oleomargarine  showed  these  people  that  the  people  of  the 
country  wanted  something  fresh  and  sweet  all  the  time;  that  they  did 
not  want  summer  butter  palmed  off  on  them  in  winter  as  fresh  butter. 
People  had  been  accustomed  to  that  old  flavor  or  taste,  but  at  the  pres- 
ent time  you  can  not  get  people  to  eat  it.  There  is  a  sort  of  butyric 
acid  arises  in  old  butter,  and  while  it  is  not  strong  in  flavor,  it  has  a 
sort  of  nauseating  taste.  After  you  eat  it  it  produces  gas,  and  a  sort 
of  fishy,  nasty  taste  will  arise  from  it.  That  class  of  butter  is  practi- 
cally driven  out  of  the  market  by  the  introduction  of  oleomargarine. 

That  continued,  as  I  said  before,  and  we  were  large  shippers  of  this 
Ohio  butter,  shipping  probably  50,000  pounds  of  Ohio  rolled  butter 
into  the  market.  I  was  sent  to  Ohio  as  a  representative  of  our  firm  to 
sell  our  goods.  Of  course  it  was  my  disposition  to  do  all  I  possibly 
could  to  place  our  butter  on  the  market  and  receive  the  very  highest 
price  for  it.  I  continued  along  in  that  line  of  business  until  1881,  prac- 
tically breaking  up  the  men  that  I  sold  butter  to,  and  breaking  up  the 
people  that  I  sold  butter  for,  for  the  simple  reason  that  these  people 
in  the  country,  when  they  would  bring  their  butter  to  the  markets, 
would  expect  to  sell  it. 

The  woman  who  used  to  bring  the  poorest  butter  to  the  market  was 
the  best  customer  at  our  store.  We  could  not  discriminate  and  say 
to  Mrs.  Jones,  "Your  butter  is  not  so  good  as  Mrs.  Smith's,  and  we 
will  have  to  discriminate  and  give  you  5  cents  a  pound  less  for  your 
butter  than  what  Mrs.  Smith  receives."  Therefore  our  butter  was  sent 
to  the  market  in  all  these  conceivable  shapes  and  styles,  the  good,  bad, 
and  indifferent  together.  I  continued  in  this  kind  of  business  until 
1881.  In  1881 1  went  to  the  National  Butter  and  Cheese  Makers'  Asso- 
ciation, at  Milwaukee,  and  was  placed  on  the  committee  there  with  a 
gentleman  from  Wisconsin,  and  another  one  from  Boston,  I  think,  to 
examine  the  different  qualities  of  butter,  etc.  I  came  back  to  Chicago 
and  stopped  one  day  in  an  establishment  manufacturing  oleomargarine. 
I  asked  for  a  consignment  of  oleomargarine.  At  that  time  they  were 
sending  goods  in  consignments.  The  gentleman  asked  me  whether  we 
were  selling  oleomargarine.  I  told  him  no,  and  I  explained  my  situa- 
tion exactly.  I  told  him  the  quality  of  our  butter  was  such  that  we 
were  compelled  to  get  something  that  would  give  satisfaction  to  the 
trade,  give  satisfaction  to  the  poor  people,  and  afford  a  profit  to  the 


542  OLEOMARGARINE. 

people  who  were  selling  these  goods.  He  said  he  would  be  very  glad 
to  ship  me  some  of  the  goods.  Since  then  I  have  been  a  seller  of  oleo- 
margarine in  the  city  of  Philadelphia — since  1881  continuously,  except 
probably  a  few  mouths  when  the  law  was  so  severe  that  I  had  to  quit. 

.Senator  MONEY.  What  law? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Our  State  law.  The  State  law,  though,  from  1881  to  1885 
was  of  no  account  at  all.  The  gentlemen  who  were  here  the  other  day 
representing  the  butter  interests  were  the  largest  handlers  of  oleomar- 
garine at  that  time  From  1881,  probably,  to  1885  the  competition  in 
oleomargarine  became  so  great  and  the  profit  became  so  small  that 
these  people  who  are  fighting  oleomargarine  to-day  were  the  cause  of 
having  the  national  law  made  at  that  time.  It  was  not  made  for  the 
regulation  of  oleomargarine,  but  it  was  made  to  drive  it  out  entirely. 
They  put  a  2-ceut  tax  on  the  product  and  a  license  of  $600  for  the 
manufacturing  of  the  goods,  $480  for  the  wholesaler  and  $48  for  the 
retailer;  and  no  man  wanted  to  go  into  the  business.  Very  few  of  the 
commission  men  of  our  State  pay  that  much  rent  for  their  buildings, 
for  their  storerooms.  They  can  not  afford  to  do  so,  on  account  of  their 
expenses  and  the  sinalliiess  of  their  profits,  etc.  The  competition  of 
oleomargarine  had  become  so  great  that  there  was  very  little  profit  in 
it.  They  thought  they  would  drive  it  out  by  putting  on  this  excessive 
tax,  as  they  called  it  at  that  time.  A  prohibitory  law  was  passed  in 
Pennsylvania,  but  they  believed  that  law  was  unconstitutional,  and 
some  of  them  continued  along  until  1886.  When  the  1886  United 
States  internal-revenue  law  went  into  effect  we  immediately  took  out 
a  license  there  and  commenced  selling  oleomargarine  as  the  Chicago 
Butterine  Company  of  Philadelphia,  and  we  have  continued  from  that 
time  up  to  the  present  time.  We  have  sold  it  for  wh  at  it  was.  The 
people  have  bought  it  for  what  it  was.  We  had  been  harassed  on  the 
street  by  these  men  continually. 

Senator  MONEY.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  PAUL.  By  bringing  suits  against  us  under  the  State  law. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Paul,  will  you  pardon  an  interruption? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Were  you  not  violating  the  State  law  ? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir;  the  prohibitory  law;  but  we  believed  it  uncon- 
stitutional. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Had  not  the  courts  pronounced  it  constitutional? 

Mr.  PAUL.  No,  sir;  they  had  not. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  law  was  that? 

Mr.  PAUL.  The  State  law  of  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Passed  at  what  time? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Passed  in  1885  or  1886,  I  don't  know  which. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  courts  have  since  passed  on  it  and  pronounced  it 
constitutional,  have  they  not? 

Mr.  PAUL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Did  not  the  Pennsylvania  court  pass  on  it? 

Mr.  PAUL.  No,  sir. 

Senator  MONEY.  How  many  States  have  legislated  on  this  subject? 
Can  you  tell  me  that,  Mr.  Knight  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Thirty-two  States  have  the  anticolor  law.  I  was  under 
the  impression  that  the  supreme  court  of  Pennsylvania  had  passed  on 
the  law  Mr.  Paul  refers  to. 

Mr.  PAUL.  I  will  come  to  that.  In  1889  they  forced  this  to  an 
issue,  tinder  this  State  law.  The  first  package  we  sold  in  1889  was 
sold  to  a  detective.  I  recollect  when  the  gentleman  came  into  our 


OLEOMARGARINE.  543 

store.  He  let  on  that  he  was  a  huckster.  He  came  in  tapping  his  leg, 
etc.,  and  asked  me  if  we  were  selling  oleomargarine.  I  said  we  were. 
I  turned  him  over  to  my  brother,  and  my  brother  said:  "Do  you  want 
to  buy  some  goods?"  He  said  he  did,  He  bought  one  package,  and 
immediately  suit  was  brought  on  that  first  package  of  goods  that  we 
sold.  The  case  was  decided  against  us  before  the  magistrate,  and  was 
carried  up  to  the  common  pleas  court,  before  Judge  Eeed,  of  Philadel- 
phia. The  decision  was  handed  down  in  December,  1890,  in  our  favor, 
showing  that  the  interstate  commerce  law  was  constitutional,  and 
allowing  the  original  package  to  be  brought  into  the  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania and  to  be  sold  for  what  it  was,  in  the  shape  and  size  that  was 
regulated  by  the  internal-revenue  law.  This  resulted  in  a  good  trade 
for  us.  Immediately  two  of  the  firms  who  were  before  you  last  week 
took  out  their  special  license  and  commenced  selling  the  goods.  They 
were  quite  prominent  houses  in  Philadelphia.  They  commenced  sell- 
ing goods  quite  freely  until  in  the  month  of  April,  1890,  this  organiza- 
tion of  people  who  had  been  fighting  us  considered  that  the  law  was 
unconstitutional,  and  they  immediately  went  to  Chicago— two  of  the 
prominent  firms  who  were  here,  and  two  of  the  prominent  firms  we  were 
fighting,  and  they  were  also  officers  of  the  Butter  Protective  Associa- 
tion, I  believe  it  is  called.  They  went  to  Chicago  and  called  together 
the  manufacturers  of  Chicago  and  asked  them  if  they  would  allow  them 
to  sell  their  product  in  Philadelphia.  They  showed  to  them  where 
they  would  be  able  to  dispose  of  a  great  many  goods.  They  got  the 
right  to  sell  the  goods  as  distributing  agent. 

One  of  these  other  parties  who  had  taken  out  a  special  license,  when 
he  found  he  had  to  buy  his  goods  wholesale  through  the  agents  in  Phil- 
adelphia, immediately  went  to  work  to  enforce  the  State  prohibitory 
law.  During  the  months  of  April  and  May  I  suppose  there  were  fifty  or 
seventy-five  retail  licenses  taken  out  through  the  influence  of  these 
other  gentlemen  who  had  gone  to  Chicago.  This  one  old  gentleman 
became  incensed  because  he  had  to  buy  his  goods  through  the  agents 
in  Philadelphia,  who  were  his  enemies  in  business.  He  came  to  me  in 
my  office,  and  he  said  to  me,  "  Mr.  Paul,  must  I  buy  my  goods  from 
you  people  and  from  these  other  people  who  have  been  appointed  here 
as  distributing  agents  in  Philadelphia?"  I  said,  "The  understanding 
is  we  are  to  be  the  wholesale  agents  for  these  goods  here  in  this  mar- 
ket at  the  present  time  until  the  market  gets  settled,  and  we  are  to  give 
up  all  our  jobbing  interests.  We  must  sell  our  goods  to  the  wholesale 
trade."  He  said,  "  1  would  willingly  buy  my  goods  from  you,  but  if  I 
have  got  to  buy  my  goods  from  these  other  people  who  have  been  my 
friends,  I  will  go  in  and  fight  them  to  the  teeth.  If  you  were  standing 
in  the  middle  of  the  street,  and  those  people  were  on  the  other  side  of 
the  street,"  said  he,  "if  I  have  got  to  knock  you  down  I  am  going  to 
knock  you  down.  I  am  going  to  bring  suit  right  away  against  you,  and 
I  am  going  to  carry  it  up  to  the  higher  courts."  Immediately  suit  was 
brought  against  us,  with  the  same  result,  before  Judge  Hare,  who  is  con- 
sidered one  of  the  best  constitutional  judges  we  had  in  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  -What  year  was  that? 

Mr.  PAUL.  I  think  it  was  in  1891.  That  case  was  carried  into  the 
State  supreme  court;  but  other  suits  had  been  brought  against  other 
persons  who  came  in  after  that — for  instance,  Mr.  Schollenbarger.  Then 
our  attorneys  and  the  Butter  Protective  Association  and  the  State's 
attorneys  agreed  on  a  case  stated,  taking  up  first  the  Schollenbarger 
case,  although  the  Paul  case,  or  the  Chicago  Butteriue  Company  case, 
was  also  taken  up  at  the  same  time.  Mr.  Schollenbarger's  name  being 


544  OLEOMARGARINE. 

first  on  the  list,  he  got  the  preference,  and  the  case  is  known  as  the 
Schollenbarger  case.  The  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
decided  adversely  to  us. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  decided  the  State  law  to  be  constitutional? 

Mr.  PAUL.  It  decided  the  State  law  was  constitutional.  We  carried 
that  case  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  In  the  mean- 
time they  persecuted  our  firm  to  the  extent  of  41  cases.  These  same 
men  who  were  down  here  talking  against  oleomargarine  had  been  sell- 
ers of  oleomargarine  up  to  that  time;  but  because  they  could  not  just 
buy  it  as  they  expected  to  buy  it  they  commenced  to  persecute  us. 

Senator  MOJSEY.  You  mean  prosecute,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes;  but  it  was  persecution. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  was  after  the  supreme  court  of  your  State  had 
declared  the  law  constitutional? 

Mr.  PAUL.  It  was  after  the  supreme  court  had  decided  that  the  law 
was  constitutional,  and  after  that  time  until  we  carried  that  case  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  we  located  on  the  other  side  of 
the  river,  in  Camden.  We  remained  in  Camden  nearly  two  years,  until 
our  case  was  decided  in  our  favor  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  Thenweimmediatelybroughtourgoodsbackandwecominenced 
to  sell  oleomargarine  for  what  it  was.  Then  they  went  before  the  legis- 
lature at  Harrisburg  and  had  a  law  passed  taxing  the  manufacturers  of 
oleomargarine  $1,000  as  a  State  license,  taxing  the  wholesaler  $500  in 
addition  to  the  United  States  tax,  the  retailer  $100,  the  restaurant 
keeper  and  hotel  keeper  $50,  and  the  poor  butterine-house  keeper,  $10; 
but  they  did  not  stop  at  that.  They  went  to  work  and  said,  "  You  dare 
not  sell  it  colored  in  imitation  of  butter."  We  believed  that  law  to  be 
just  as  unconstitutional  as  the  former  law,  and  therefore  we  were  sell- 
ing the  goods  to  the  trade. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Paul,  you  maintain,  do  you,  that  you  do  not  have  to 
comply  with  a  law  until  it  has  been  passed  on  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Well,  we  consider  that  we  have  the  right  to  sell  these 
goods. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  do  not  think  that  question  is  admissible  here.  It 
does  not  have  any  effect  or  bearing  on  this  question  before  us. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  only  brings  out  the  attitude  of  dealers  in  oleomar- 
garine in  connection  with  the  laws,  Senator.  The  facts  are  that  any 
law  that  we  have  passed  attempting  to  regulate  the  traffic  is  carried  to 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  it  is  absolutely  ignored  and  defied  until  we  get 
it  through  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  as  a  rule,  and  they 
claim  to  be  persecuted  if  they  are  prosecuted  under  those  laws. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  understand  that,  but  still  it  is  a  matter  which  is 
perfectly  immaterial  to  the  discussion  here. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Do  you  call  a  law  which  imposes  upon  a  retail  dealer  in 
a  corner  grocery  a  special  tax  of  $100  a  law  to  regulate  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  or  to  prohibit  it? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  would  be  for  the  courts  to  pass  on,  Mr.  Jelke. 

Senator  MONEY.  We  will  have  no  time  to  hear  these  colloquies.  You 
will  have  to  talk  about  them  on  the  outside.  We  want  to  hear  the  wit 
ness  here,  with  only  such  interruptions  as  are  pertinent  to  this  case. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  thought  it  was  pertinent  to  bring  out  tnat  point, 
because  that  has  been  our  trouble,  right  in  that  very  connection. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  does  not  make  a  bit  of  difference. 

Mr.  PAUL.  The  animus  which  was  exhibited  in  this  whole  business 
was  on  the  part  of  people  who  had  been  violators  of  the  law  in  the 
extreme.  This  one  person  I  had  in  my  mind  was  going  about  the  streets 


sif  T>VvJ 


OLEOMAKGARINE.  545 


of  Philadelphia  making  bets  of  $100  that  he  would  send  me  to  prison, 
and  giving  $5  for  the  bets.  He  was  betting  people  to  a  standstill.  He 
could  get  very  few  bets,  because  they  all  thought  I  was  violating  this 
law  and  that  I  would  finally  be  sent  to  prison.  Of  course  he  brought 
as  many  suits  as  he  possibly  could.  I  think  there  were  41  cases  against 
us  standing  on  the  docket  when  the  case  was  called  in  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  as  to  our  right  to  sell  goods  in  the  original  package. 

I  went  to  Hrfrrisburg  after  this  regulative  law  and  theuncolored  law 
were  passed.  I  went  before  the  dairy  commissioner  and  asked  him — 1 
said:  "In  regard  to  that  part  of  the  law  which  refers  to  coloring  oleo- 
margarine like  butter,  I  want  to  say  that  butter  has  no  color."  I  said: 
44  You  have  been  taught  to  color  butter  by  the  ojeo  people.  We  believe 
that  part  of  the  law  unconstitutional.  Do  you  intend  to  enforce  that,  if 
men  sell  oleo  for  oleo ?"  He  said:  "  We  can  best  find  that  out  by  going 
across  to  the  attorney-general."  I  said:  "  I  want  to  sell  oleomargarine, 
but  I  do  not  want  to  be  harassed  any  more  like  I  have  been  for  the 
past  ten  years  in  Philadelphia." 

I  went  with  him  over  to  the  attorney-general  and  we  had  a  talk  with 
the  attorney  general.  He  said:  "Mr.  Paul,  it  is  a  matter  of  opinion 
whether  that  law  is  constitutional  or  not,  but  we  will  try  a  case  in  Har- 
risburg,  one  in  Pittsburg,  and  one  in  Philadelphia.  If  the  cases  are 
decided  in  our  favor  they  will  be  carried  to  the  higher  courts,  and  if 
they  are  decided  adversely  to  you  you  will  have  to  quit  selling  oleo- 
margarine." We  went  to  work  and  took  out  our  license.  We  went  to  our 
trade  and  told  them  just  exactly  the  situation  of  affairs.  They  imme- 
diately took  out  their  retail  tax  in  the  State,  and  also  the  United  States 
license,  and  commenced  selling  the  goods.  I  am  told  that  they  had  an 
income  of  at  least  800,000  last  year  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  for 
State  licenses,  even  with  that  embargo  of  color  on  it. 

Now,  I  want  to  say  this,  gentlemen.  If  you  drive  oleomargarine  out 
by  this  excessive  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  on  colored  goods,  you  will 
drive  the  manufacturing  of  butter  back  into  the  same  old  rut  in  which 
it  was  in  1870  and  1871  and  1872,  and  on  up  to  1881.  You  will  drive 
the  creamery  system  out  of  existence.  They  have  been  taught  how  to 
make  fine  butter  by  the  introduction  of  oleomargarine.  The  price  of 
butter  is  such  at  the  present  time  that  it  pays  the  farmer  very  well  for 
what  he  is  getting  for  his  milk  and  cream.  If  this  Grout  bill  becomes 
a  law  the  farmers  of  the  country  will  commence  making  butter  in  a 
slipshod  way. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  do  not  .understand  exactly  how,  if  oleomargarine 
were  driven  out  of  business,  the  creamery  business  would  be  suppressed 
as  the  best  way  to  make  butter  and  the  farmers  get  a  good  return. 

Mr.  PAUL.  For  the  simple  reason  that  on  account  of  competition 
among  the  trade,  among:  the  business  people,  among  the  manufacturers 
of  process  butter,  who  are  active  and  energetic,  more  so  than  farmers, 
they  will  be  bidding  higher  prices  for  this  lenovated  butter,  much 
higher  than  the  prices  for  milk  and  cream  that  can  be  made  into  cream- 
ery butter  during  the  summer  months.  This  butter  will  be  held  from 
the  summer  until  the  fall  and  winter  in  cold  storage  places  and  then 
remilked,  rechurned,  and  brought  onto  the  market  again.  The  first 
creameries  that  were  started  got  exorbitant  prices  for  their  butter  hr 
the  early  seventies,  but  they  did  not  get  sufficient  to  carry  on  the  busk 
ness.  I  believe  the  first  prize  awarded  at  the  Centennial  at  Philadel- 
phia was  to  Mr.  Stewart,  of  Iowa,  and  he  finally  failed  in  business* 
because  he  could  not  get  sufficient  goods  at  the  time  for  the  manufac- 
ture of  creamery  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  He  could  not  get  milk  and  cream  enough ?. 
S..  Rep.  2043 35 


546  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  PAUL.  He  could  not  get  milk  and  cream  enough  to  make  butter 
enough  to  continue  his  business. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  price  has  gone  up,  has  it? 

Mr.  PAUL.  No;  the  price  has  come  down,  but  at  the  same  time  every- 
thing else  has  come  "down  in  proportion,  so  that  they  are  getting  a  very 
good  price  for  their  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  Do  you  sell  butter  now? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir;  as  a  commission  merchant.  I  am  selling  butter, 
eggs,  and  cheese. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  sell  both  butter  and  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

If  oleomargarine  is  legislated  out  of  existence  by  an  excessive  tax 
you  will  destroy  the  creamery  system  of  the  United  States.  It  will  be 
a  step  backward,  because  the  renovated  butter  system  will  become  the 
butter  of  the  day.  My  reasons  for  saying  so  are  that  during  the 
summer  months,  or  when  butter  is  cheap,  butter  will  then  be  made, 
as  I  said  before,  in  any  slipshod  way  and  held  for  better  prices  through 
the  winter  season,  and  renovated,  and  forced  on  the  public  as  butter. 
It  will  so  cripple  the  creameries  now  in  existence  that  they  will  be 
forced  to  retire  or  adopt  that  plan  of  making  their  butter.  1  believe 
that  the  creameries  will  finally  have  to  adopt  the  system  of  making 
butter  as  the  process- butter  people  are  doing  at  the  present  time  if  this 
law  is  passed,  because  there  will  be  no  money  in  creamery  butter. 

Oleomargarine  does  not  affect  fine  butter.  It,  however,  drives  poor 
butter  out  of  existence,  or  makes  poor  butter  makers,  owing  to  the  low 
price  they  receive,  sell  their  milk  and  cream  to  the  creamery  men.  The 
creamery  men  had  better  stop  fighting  oleo,  because  it  is  their  besfc 
friend.  What  we  want  is  fancy  butter  for  those  who  can  afford  to  pay 
for  it,  and  we  want  oleomargarine  as  the  butter  for  the  poor  man.  A 
creamery  man  who  can  not  make  better  butter  than  oleomargarine  had 
better  retire. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  testimony  here  by  gentlemen  on  your  side  has 
been  that  you  can  not  tell  the  difference;  and  Senator  Allen  said  he 
had  been  eating  oleomargarine  here  all  winter  and  did  not  know  it. 

Mr.  PAUL.  That  probably  is  taste  with  some  people,  but  a  tine  but- 
ter is  the  finest  thing  that  goes  into  a  man's  stomach.  There  is  so 
much  of  it,  however,  that  is  not  fine  that  these  people  want  to  foist 
onto  the  public  as  fine  butter. 

Senator  ALLEN.  How  can  a  man  tell  whether  he  is  eating  poor  but- 
ter or  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  PAUL.  On  the  same  principle — how  can  a  man  tell  that  an  egg 
is  counterfeit? 

Senator  MONEY.  I  suppose  that  I  have  eaten  pounds  of  oleomarga- 
rine, but  I  never  knew  it.  I  don't  know  that  I  ever  ate  a  mouthful  of 
it,  but  they  tell  me  since  I  have  been  here  I  am  eating  it  all  the  time, 
although  1  am  boarding  at  the  Senate  restaurant,  the  best  restaurant 
in  town. 

Mr.  PAUL.  I  would  not  eat  it  on  my  table;  I  will  tell  you  that. 

Senator  MONEY.  Could  you  tell  whether  it  was  butter  or  not? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir;  I  can  tell.  In  1893  I  took  a  trip  West  with  my 
little  family,  and  after  we  left  Denver  the  butter  that  was  on  the  table 
was  not  fit  to  eat.  Where  we  got  oleomargarine  it  was  all  right.  I 
stopped  in  a  certain  hotel  in  one  of  the  Western  cities,  and  when  we  sat 
down  at  the  table  I  said  to  my  daughter,  "Helen,  this  is  oleo."  She 
said:  "Well,  it  is  a  plagued  sight  better  than  the  butter  we  had  down 
at  Pueblo."  So  that  is  the  difference.  People  will  not  consume  so 
much  poor  butter.  For  instance,  in  my  little  family  at  home,  consist- 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  547 

ing  of  my  wife  and  daughter  and  one  servant  and  myself,  we  consume 
on  our  table  3  pounds  of  butter  per  week,  the  very  finest  that  I  can 
get,  because  1  like  fine  butter,  and  because  1  believe  1  can  afford  to  pay 
for  it;  but  if  I  could  not  I  would  buy  tine  oleomargarine. 

If  we  have  oleomargarine  with  the  regulative  law  now  enforced  by 
the  United  States,  and  the  States  repeal  their  useless  prohibitory  and 
nonsensical  color  laws,  you  will  find  competition  will  force  dealers  to 
sell  oleomargarine  for  what  it  is.  I  claim  that  competition  will  do  all 
this  if  you  will  allow  the  people  to  sell  the  goods.  When  a  retailer 
must  pay  $148  a  year  to  sell  oleomargarine,  as  he  must  in  Philadelphia, 
and  a  wholesaler  must  pay  $980  a  year,  there  are  always  chances  for 
a  man  to  commit  fraud  under  those  circumstances.  If  a  10-ceut  tax  is 
put  on  there  is  much  more  chance  for  fraud. 

Senator  MONEY.  Of  course  we  can  not  regulate  the  State  legislation. 
That  is  a  subject  we  can  not  deal  with. 

Mr.  PAUL.  I  understand  that. 

It  is  impossible  to  sell  uncolored  oleomargarine  or  uncolored  butter 
for  the  table  or  for  family  use  at  the  present  time.  We  have  a  regula- 
tive uucolored  law  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  with  an  excessive 
State  tax,  which,  so  far  as  selling  uncolored  oleo  is  concerned,  is  pro- 
hibitory. For  ourselves  I  would  say  that  the  proportion  of  uncolored 
oleo  that  we  sell  at  the  present  time  is  about  1  pound  to  1,000  pounds  of 
colored  oleomargarine. 

Senator  MONEY.  How  would  it  be  as  to  the  uncolored  butter  and 
colored  butter? 

Mr.  PAUL.  We  can  not  sell  uncolored  butter  for  any  other  purpose 
than  for  baking  purposes. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  do  not  care  what  it  is  for.  What  would  be  the 
proportion  of  uncolored  and  colored  butter  that  you  would  sell?  You 
have  given  us  the  proportion  of  colored  and  uncolored  oleomargarine. 
What  would  be  the  proportion  of  colored  and  uncoloreri^butter  ? 

Mr.  PAUL.  There  is  just  about  that  proportion  of  uncolored  butter 
coming  into  the  market — about  1  pound  in  1,000  pounds. 

Senator  MONEY.  It  is  all  sold,  is  it? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir.    You  see,  it  is  all  colored  in  the  factories. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  mean  all  the  uncolored  butter  is  sold? 

Mr.  PAUL.  The  uncolored  butter  is  bought  up  by  the  manufacturers 
of  process  butter.  They  are  the  best  buyers  of  uncolored  butter  at  the 
present  time.  They  are  the  best  buyers  we  have. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  meant  to  the  consumer. 

Mr.  PAUL.  The  consumer  will  not  buy  uncolored  butter  any  more. 
A  few  cracker  bakers  may  buy  it.  As  I  stated  yesterday,  what  consti- 
tutes first-class  butter  on  the  Philadelphia  market,  according  to  the 
Philadelphia  Produce  Exchange,  is  this:  Forty-five  points  in  flavor,  25 
in  body,  15  in  color,  10  in  salt,  and  5  in  general  appearance,  making  100 
points.  Now,  by  referring  to  this  memorandum  of  the  annual  report  of 
the  Philadelphia  Produce  Exchange  of  January,  1900,  extras  in  the 
way  of  creamery  butter- show  an  average  of  95  points,  or  higher.  There 
is  required  15  per  cent  to  make  that  butter  extra  by  being  colored.  If 
15  per  cent  was  taken  out  of  that  butter  it  could  not  be  sold  at 

Senator  MONEY.  You  mean  below  the  present  prices? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  confess  I  do  not  understand  your  grading  there. 

Mr.  PAUL.  These  are  official  reports. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  know,  but  I  do  not  understand  what  you  mean  by 
butter  having  so  many  points. 


548  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  PAUL.  It  is  in  relation  to  making  sales  of  butter  on  the  Phila 
delphia  Produce  Exchange.  The  butter  is  examined  by  a  gentleman 
who  has  been  appointed  for  that  purpose — an  inspector. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  mean  that  100  is  the  best  quality? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  MONEY.  One  hundred  is  taken  as  a  basis,  and  the  flavor 
would  count  as  45  points? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir;  in  quality.  Then  it  must  have  25  per  cent  in 
body,  in  texture.  That  refers  to  its  being  firm,  elastic,  etc.  Then  it 
must  have  15  points  in  color.  If  you  had  mixed  goods — that  is,  if  you 
had  a  lot  of  butter  that  was  mixed  in  color — it  would  be  graded  down. 

I  have  not  the  prices  for  last  year.  They  have  not  been  compiled 
yet;  but  this  is  from  the  Philadelphia  Produce  Exchange  report  for 
January,  1900,  giving  the  highest  and  lowest  price  of  tine  butter  during 
the  different  months  of  the  year.  Those  prices  are  as  follows :  I  u  Janu- 
ary, 1899,  the  highest  price  was  22  cents  and  the  lowest  price  M) cents 
for  Pennsylvania  goods.  The  same  prices  prevailed  on  Western  goods. 
In  February  the  prices  were  26  cents  and  19  cents;  in  March,  22£ cents 
and  20  cents;  in  April,  22£  cents  and  17£  cents;  in  May,  19^  cents  and 
17J  cents;  in  June,  19  cents  and  18  cents;  in  July,  19  cents  and  18£ 
cents;  in  August,  21  cents  and  18J  cents;  in  September,  23  cents  and  21 
cents;  in  October,  24  cents  and  23  cents;  in  November,  27  cents  and 
24  J  cents;  in  December,  28 £  cents  and  27  cents. 

These  are  the  official  prices  of  butter  on  the  Philadelphia  Produce 
Exchange  during  the  year  1899.  The  prices  for  Western  butter  were 
the  same — an  average  of  about  23  cents  per  pound  for  the  highest  and 
20J  cents  for  the  lowest,  making  an  average  of  almost  22£  cents  per 
pound  during  the  entire  year. 

Senator  MONEY.  Have  you  the  oleomargarine  list  there? 

Mr.  PAUL.  No,  sir;  I  have  not. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Paul,  is  there  any  published  market  price  on  oleo- 
margarine? In  any  market  reports  that  you  can  find,  is  there  any 
regular  quoted  price  for  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  PAUL.  I  will  answer  that  question  by  saying  that  the  exchanges 
are  dominated  by  butter  people,  and  they  will  not  allow  the  price  of 
oleomargarine  to  be  posted  up. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  I  mean  in  the  newspapers. 

Mr.  PAUL.  Of  course  they  do  not  get  it  from  anybody.  They  do  not 
inquire  for  it,  and  they  do  not  want  it. 

Senator  MONEY.  It  is  like  certain  stocks  that  are  not  listed.  It  is 
sold  on  the  curb. 

Mr.  PAUL.  This  goes  to  show  that  the  amount  of  oleomargarine  being 
sold  in  Philadelphia  causes  a  good  price  to  be  received  for  butter  in  all 
seasons  of  the  year.  The  State  of  Pennsylvania  manufactures  about 
90,000,000  pounds  of  butter  a  year.  The  Stateconsumes  about  200,000,000 
pounds  a  year.  According  to  the  statistics  in  the  Kevenue  Department 
there  are  bet  ween  11,000,000  and  1 2,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarinsvsold 
in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  in  a  year.  Therefore  there  are  between 
90,000,000  and  100,000,000  pounds  of  foreign  butter  that  comes  into  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania  to  supply  the  demands  of  that  State  alone. 

Senator  BATE.  How  do  you  get  at  that  fact? 

Mr.  PAUL.  From  the  State  bcird  of  agriculture  at  Harrisburg. 

Senator  BATE.  It  is  estimated,  I  suppose  ? 

Mr.  PAUL.  I  suppose  it  is  estimated;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  MONEY.  They  get  the  returns  on  it? 

Mr.  PAUL.  They  get  the  returns  from  the  Internal  Kevenue  Depart- 
ment on  oleomargarine. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  549 

Senator  MONEY.  Have  you  any  figures  about  New  York?  That  is  a 
great  butter  State. 

Mr.  PAUL.  I  have  not.  We  think  we  have  got  a  very  good  State  for 
making  butter.  We  claim  that  we  make  the  best  butter  in  the  world 
right  around  Philadelphia.  They  are  getting  $1  a  pound  around  Phila- 
delphia, the  year  round,  for  their  butter,  and  from  $1  down  to  75  and 
55  and  35  cents. 

Senator  MONEY.  It  is  the  same  thing  in  New  York  and,  I  believe,  in 
Vermont  and  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  think  the  90,000,000  pounds  is  based  on  the  census 
of  1800. 

Mr.  PAUL  I  have  never  figured  that  out.  That  is  from  the  depart- 
ment of  agriculture  at  Harrisburg. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  We  have  nothing  from  this  census  yet. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  have  the  agricultural  statement  here.  It  does  not 
include  the  last  ten  years,  but  1  would  like  to  read  the  figures  show- 
ing the  increase  in  the  amount  of  butter  produced.  The  total  amount 
of  butter  made  in  the  United  States  in  1850  was  313,345,000  pounds; 
in  1860,  411),()81,000  pounds;  in  1870,  514,092,000  pounds;  in  1880, 
806,772,000  pounds;  in  1890,  1,205,508,000  pounds;  and  from  an  esti- 
mate made  by  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  the  other  day  the  produc- 
tion for  1900  will  be  1,500,000  pounds,  showing  a  steady  increase  since 
1850. 

Mr.  PAUL.  It  is  impossible  to  furnish  cheap  butter  to  supply  the 
working  classes  of  Philadelphia,  or  any  other  city,  unless  they  use  oleo- 
margarine. The  working  people  of  the  agricultural  district  of  Penn- 
sylvania— in  the  part  of  the  country  where  I  was  brought  up,  near 
Carlisle,  Cumberland  County — on  an  average  do  not  make  $100  a  year. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  do  you  mean  by  working  people — the  farm 
laborers? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir;  the  farm  laborers.  Machinery  has  driven  the 
laborer  out  of  existence  almost. 

Senator  MONEY.  Somebody  has  to  work  the  machines. 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes;  but  you  do  not  require  as  many  of  them  as  were 
required  to  do  the  manual  labor.  For  instance,  you  used  to  go  into  a 
prosperous  little  village  and  you  would  find  a  shoemaker  and  two  or 
three  blacksmiths  and  a  carpenter.  You  would  find  a  miller  and  a 
boot  and  shoe  maker  and  a  tailor.  Those  men  have  gone  out  of  exist- 
ence practically.  You  will  find  cobblers  there.  These  people  are  com- 
pelled to  buy  butter  at  these  exorbitant  prices,  and  they  can  hardly 
afford  to  do  it. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Is  the  proportion  of  idle  men  in  that  commu- 
nity any  greater  now  than  it  was  ten  or  twenty  or  twenty-five  years 


Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  There  are  more  idle  men? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir;  more  idle  men. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Is  there, not  a  greater  demand  for  labor  now 
than  there  was  then? 

Mr.  PAUL.  No,  sir;  there  is  very  little.  A  great  many  of  the  men 
of  that  country  are  going  into  the  cities. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  do  not  think  Mr.  Paul  just  understood  the  question. 
I  think  he  wishes  in  His  reply  to  state,  if  I  may  interrupt  him 

Mr.  PAUL.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  That  there  is  not  the  demand  for  labor  in  these  locali- 
ties that  there  was  years  ago,  and  that  there  consequently  would  be 


550  OLEOMARGARINE. 

more  idle  men;  that  they  have  been  shifted  toother  centers  where  they 
found  employment.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  BATE.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  machinery  has  done  away  with 
manual  labor  to  a  certain  extent. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Still  the  proportion  that  is  employed  to-day 
is  greater  than  it  was  in  years  past?  There  are  more  hands  at  work 
throughout  the  country,  generally  speaking,  than  there  were  ten  or 
twenty  or  twenty-five  years  ago? 

Senator  MONEY.  The  population  has  doubled  in  that  time. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  am  speaking  proportionately,  Senator. 

Mr.  PAUL.  The  proportion  of  poor  laborers,  both  in  the  cities  and  in 
the  country,  is  alarmingly  great.  I  have  made  the  suggestion  there  in 
Philadelphia  that  if  I  were  to  advertise  for  5,000  men  at  $1  a  day,  360 
days  work  in  the  year,  the  next  morning  I  would  have  the  streets  in 
front  of  my  place  crowded  so  much  that  nobody  could  get  into  the 
place.  For  instance,  a  few  years  ago  I  wanted  to  distribute  a  lot  of 
circulars,  and  I  put  an  advertisement  in  the  paper,  *'  Wanted — Persons 
to  address  20,000  envelopes,"  and  asking  them  to  state  the  price  they 
would  address  them  for.  In  the  next  morning's  mail  I  had  286  answers, 
offering  to  do  it  at  from  10  to  55  cents  a  thousand.  That  will  show  you 
the  amount  of  labor  that  is  unemployed. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  displacing  of  a  pound  of  butter  by  a  pound  of 
oleomargarine  drives  labor  from  the  farms  to  the  city,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  PAUL.  No,  sir;  it  does  not. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Why  not? 

Mr.  PAUL.  For  the  simple  reason  that  they  have  to  have  as  much 
labor  on  the  farm  as  they  had  before  to  milk  their  cows. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  If  you  take  the  business  of  making  butter  from  the 
farm  and  transfer  it  to  the  oleomargarine  factory  in  the  city,  where  is 
your  laborer  employed? 

Mr.  PAUL.  You  do  not  transfer  it  to  the  oleomargarine  interests. 
You  transfer  that  butter  in  the  shape  of  milk  to  the  creameries. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  your  oleomargarine  supplants  the  creamery  butter. 

Mr.  PAUL.  No,  sir;  it  does  not  supplant  creamery  butter.  It  only 
supplants  poor  butter.  We  do  not  ask  as  much  for  oleomargarine  as 
is  paid  for  creamery  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  do  you  get  for  your  oleomargarine?  There 
seems  to  be  three  grades  of  it.  What  do  you  get  for  it  I 

Mr.  PAUL.  We  are  handling  the  high-grade  goods,  and  we  sell  the 
goods  at  15  cents  a  pound. 

Senator  MONEY.  Is  that  the  best  you  have? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  is  the  next  best? 

Mr.  PAUL.  There  are  grades  of  oleo  that  are  sold  as  low  as  10  cents 
a  pound. 

Senator  MONEY.  But  you  only  handle  the  first-class  goods? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  The  best  grade  sells  for  15  cents  a  pound 
wholesale? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  sell  to  the  retailer? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Can  you  give  us  an  idea  of  how  much  they 
get  at  retail  per  pound  ? 

Mr.  PAUL.  They  are  selling  those  goods  at  about  20  to  22  cents  per 
pound  as  oleomargarine. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  551 

Senator  MONEY.  What  is  the  finest  grade  of  butter  worth  in  your 
market?  I  mean  the  creamery  butter,  not  that  fancy  stuff  that  comes 
and  is  sold,  as  you  say,  at  $1. 

Mr.  PAUL.  A  fancy  creamery  butter  has  been  selling  in  the  neigh- 
borhood  of  26  to  28  cents  all  winter.  The  last  two  weeks  we  have  had 
a  slump  in  the  market  and  prices  are  down  to  23  or  24  cents. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  was  it  a  year  ago? 

Mr.  PAUL.  I  think  about  the  same  price. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Twenty-three  or  24  cents? 

Mr.  PAUL.  I  think  it  was  higher  than  that,  26  or  27  cents  5  but  the 
proportion  of  oleomargarine  sold  then  was  larger  than  it  is  at  the 
present  time. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  presume  that  is  true.  I  do  not  know  what  the  sta- 
tistics are. 

Mr.  PAUL.  Yes,  sir.  Whenever  butter  is  high,  we  are  selling  more 
oleo.  Whenever  butter  is  low,  we  are  selling  less  oleo,  so  that  whenever 
they  have  a  low-priced  butter  they  attribute  it  to  the  oleomargarine 
sold  in  the  market,  but  that  is  not  the  case.  Whenever  there  is  a  good 
market  for  butter,  we  have  a  good  market  for  oleomargarine. 

Senator  MONEY.  What  you  want  the  committee  to  understand  is  that 
the  closer  oleomargarine  and  butter  get  in  price  the  more  the  people 
prefer  the  butter  ? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Certainly. 

Senator  MONEY.  But  as  the  difference  gets  wider,  they  have  to  get 
the  oleomargarine  because  they  can  not  pay  for  the  butter? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Certainly;  that  is  it  exactly. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  when  a  man  starts  in  to  milk  a  cow 
and  she  is  fresh  for  the  year,  he  has  got  to  go  through  and  milk  her 
anyhow,  no  matter  what  the  price  is? 

Mr.  PAUL.  Of  course  they  milk  their  cows. 

Mr  KNIGHT.  If  he  goes  through  one  year  and  butter  is  only  14  cents 
a  pound,  does  he  not  get  disgusted  and  Bay  the  next  year  he  will  not 
milk  cows? 

Mr.  PAUL.  They  do  not  in  our  country. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  do  out  in  our  country;  and  the  next  year,  when 
he  quits  milking  his  cows  and  the  supply  of  butter  is  short,  up  goes 
the  price,  and  he  can  not  get  a  fresh  cow  in  the  middle  of  the  season  to 
produce  that  butter  with. 

Mr.  PAUL.  Do  you  not  consider  the  price  quoted  here  as  a  very  good 
price  for  creamery  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  PAUL.  An  average  of  about  21  cents  the  year  round.  Do  you 
not  consider  that  a  good,  paying  price? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  has  not  been  that  for  some  time. 

Mr.  PAUL.  This  is  the  second  year.  This  last  year  it  is  higher 
than  that. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  We  have  got  the  statistics  right  here  for  a  number  of 
years. 

Mr.  PAUL.  I  will  ask  you  whether  you  do  not  consider  it  a  very  good 
price? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  think  21  cents  might  be  a  very  good  average  price, 
but  it  has  not  run  that  way. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  What  is  there  for  us  this  afternoon?  Is 
there  anybody  else  to  appear  on  your  side  this  afternoon,  Mr.  Scheli? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  do  not  know,  Senator.  I  understood  that  Secretary 
Gage  had  been  notified  to  appear. 


552  OLEOMARGARINE 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  has  not  answered,  but  he  may  come  Monday. 
There  are  uone  of  you  to  be  heard,  you  say? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  There  are  none  that  I  know  of. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  we  will  consider  the  hearings  closed  except  as 
to  Secretary  Gage. 

Mr.  MILLER.  There  are  one  or  two  gentlemen  who  would  like  to  be 
heard  on  Monday. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  they  anything  different  from  what  you  have 
already  said? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  think  they  have;  yes,  sir. 

(The  committee,  at  12  in.,  adjourned  until  Monday,  January  14, 1901, 
at  10.30  a.  in.) 


MONDAY,  January  14,  1901. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  in. 

Present:  Senators  Proctor  (chairman),  Hansbrough,  Foster,  Money, 
Allen,  and  Dolliver. 

Also,  Charles  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Union; 
Hon.  William  M.  Springer,  of  Springfield,  111.,  representing  the  National 
Live  Stock  Association;  Frank  W.  Tilliughast,  representing  the  Ver- 
mont Manufacturing  Company,  of  Providence,  \\.  I.;  Charles  E.  Schell, 
representing  the  Ohio  Butterine  Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  John 
F.  Jelke,  representing  Braun  &  Fitts,  of  Chicago,  111.;  W.  E.  Miller, 
representing  Armour  &  Co.,  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  and  others. 

(In  response  to  an  inquiry  by  the  chairman,  the  gentlemen  present 
stated  that  they  knew  of  no  one  who  had  not  yet  appeared  before  the 
committee  who  desired  to  be  heard  by  it  on  the  pending  bill.) 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  OF  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  have  something  here  in  the  shape  of  documentary 
evidence  to  which  I  would  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Senator  ALLEN).  File  it  with  the  reporter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  can  hardly  tile  this,  can  I,  Senator  f  It  is  very  volumi- 
nous. I  thought  I  would  simply  call  your  attention  to  the  material 
parts  of  it,  and  let  them  go  into  the  record. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  it? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  was  a  question  between  Mr.  Jelke  and  me  here 
last  Thursday.  I  stated  that  his  tirm,  Brauu  &  Fitts,  defended  cer- 
tain cases  which  1  had  brought  against  dealers  in  the  city  of  Chicago 
for  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter.  He  denied  it.  I  stated  that  I 
knew  that  his  man,  Lowrie,  was  on  the  bonds  of  those  people,  and  had 
continually  gone  on  the  bonds  of  those  people,  and  appeared  in  court 
every  day.  He  denied  that,  as  the  record  will  show.  I  further  made 
the  statement  that  I  had  communicated  with  this  man  Lowrie  over  the 
telephone  regarding  the  matter,  and  that  I  knew  he  had  been  on  their 
bonds.  That  was  disputed. 

Now,  I  have  here  the  original  bonds  of  A.  M.  Wright,  who  was  prose- 
cuted for  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  These  are  sureties  on  appearance  bonds? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes :  on  appearance  bonds. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  are  there  of  them1? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  are  four.     I  have  the  originals  herein  four  cases. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Does  Mr.  Lowrie's  name  appear  upon  those 
bonds? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Lowr^e's  name  annears  in)on  these  bonds  live  or 


OLEOMARGARINE.  553 

six  times  each,  in  continuances,  having  been  there  at  each  hearing. 
What  is  more,  Mr.  Lowrie's  name  appears  upon  the  bonds  where  that 
man  was  prosecuted  for  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  You  refer  to  this  "pure  grass"  butter  man? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  and  the  evidence  was  that  he  had  handled  noth- 
ing but  oleomargarine.  When  he  came  into  court  the  last  time,  either 
Mr.  Lowrie  or  his  agent  went  on  his  bond,  and  I  have  the  original  bond 
right  bere.  There  it  is — "  William  Broadwell."  There  are  the  papers 
in  that  case. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Was  that  a  prosecution  for  selling  oleomargarine  for 
butter,  Mr.  Knight? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Here  is  what  the  record  says:  "Broadwell.  Selling 
oleomargarine  as  butter."  Look  at  that.  I  would  like  to  have  the 
committee  look  at  it  and  observe  it.  And  that  is  on  all  these  bonds 
here — "  Selling  oleomargarine  as  butter."  Here  is  another  one  of  A.  M. 
Wright's  bonds  that  he  is  on. 

Mr.  JELKE.  What  was  done  with  those  cases?  Were  the  parties 
convicted  for  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  iacts  in  the  cases  were  never  denied.  The  defend- 
ants never  raised  the  point  that  they  did  not  sell  oleomargarine  as 
butter,  as  was  alleged.  • 

(Senator  Proctor  resumed  the  chair  as  chairman  of  the  committee.) 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  think  Mr.  Knight's  only  object  in  referring  to  this 
matter  was  to  show  that  Mr.  Lowrie,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  signed  these 
bonds. 

Mr.  KNIGHT  (to  Mr.  Jelke).  You  disputed  the  fact. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  would  like  to  have  Mr.  Lowrie  heard  on  that  matter. 
I  am  not  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  details  to  discuss  it  myself.  I 
know  that  Mr.  Lowrie  had  no  instructions  from  our  company  to  defend 
any  dealer  for  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter,  and  has  never  had.  I 
can  state  that  positively. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  he  did  it,  at  any  rate. 

Mr.  JELKE.  How  many  of  those  bonds  are  there  altogether? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  have  the  originals  here  in  four  cases.  Mr.  Lowrie 
appeared  on  these  bonds  a  number  of  times.  Not  only  that,  but  here 
is  the  number.  Let  me  give  you  the  dates,  please,  Senator 5  because  I 
regard  this  as  being  somewhat  important. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Those  are  merely  continuances. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  but  I  simply  want  to  show  the  number  of  times 
he  appeared  on  those  bonds.  • 

Senator  MONEY.  What  is  the  use  of  doing  that  when  everybody 
admits  that  it  is  true? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  all  right;  I  will  let  it  go  at  that. 

Senator  MONEY.  It  is  admitted  that  it  was  done.  You  have  the 
proof  there. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  Mr.  Jelke  denied  that  this  was  done. 

Now,  in  that  connection  I  want  to  state  that  two  of  these  are  cases 
where  Braun  &  Fitts's  agent  appeared  on  the  bonds,  and  two  are  cases 
where  William  J.  Moxley  &  Oo.'s  agent  appeared  on  the  bonds.  And 
I  will  say  that,  according  to  information  which  I  think  is  trustworthy, 
those  two  concerns  made  during  the  month  of  December,  1899,  one-third 
of  all  the  oleomargarine  manufactured  in  the  United  States.  Their 
combined  product  was  3,(>00,000  pounds,  whereas  the  combined  product 
of  the  whole  26  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  who  were  in  the  busi- 
ness at  that  time  was  10,000,000.  So  that  these  two  concerns  which 
have  been  backing  up  these  defenses  are  making  pretty  nearly  33  per 
cent  of  all  the  oleomargarine  that  is  made. 


554  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  understand,  Senator  Proctor,  that  the  hearings  are 
substantially  closed,  unless  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  desires  to  be 
heard. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  Mr.  Knight  is  through,  1  would  like  to  submit  a  couple 
of  telegrams  which  I  have  received  in  regard  to  what  was  called  the 
Produce  Exchange,  of  Cincinnati,  alleged  communications  from  which 
were  presented  here  by  Mr.  Knight. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  I  beg  your  pardon;  they  came  to  the  chairman  of 
the  committee. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Oh,  was  that  Jt? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes. 

Mr.  JELKE  At  any  rate,  in  regard  to  this  "Produce  Exchange"  of 
Cincinnati,  I  would  like  to  submit  these  two  telegrams,  which  it  will 
only  take  a  moment  to  read.  The  first  is  from  my  father.  He  is  a  man 
71  years  of  age,  and  is  getting  too  far  along  in  life  to  use  any  deception, 
if  it  were  ever  necessary  for  anybody  to  do  so  [reading] : 

There  is  no  bona  fide  produce  exchange  in  Cincinnati.  Some  years  ago  it  was 
abandoned  and  merged  in  Chamber  Commerce.  Recently  two  attempts  were  made 
to  have  Chamber  of  Commerce  indorse  Grout  bill.  Both  voted  down.  Then  a  few 
butter  dealers,  acting  under  foreign  instructions,  organized  this  fake  exchange,  for 
the  sole  purpose  of  making  a  false  showing  of  support  to  Grout  bill. 

This  is  a  telegram  from  the  superintendent  of  the  Cincinnati  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce,  Charles  B.  Murray : 

Replying  to  inquiry,  there  is  no  produce  exchange  in  this  city.  The  Chamber  of 
Commerce  board  of  directors  adopted  expressions  opposing  Grout  bill  tax  of  10  cents 
on  colored  oleomargarine. 

Now,  Mr.  Knight,  what  idea  have  you  as  to  how  much  oleomargarine 
we  or  anyone  else  could  sell  if  the  police  power  of  the  States  is  invested 
absolutely  in  them  by  Congress  to  regulate  this  traffic,  whereas  they, 
in  32  States,  have  prohibited  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine1? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  1  think  you  would  sell  just  as  much  as  you  have  any 
legal  right  to  sell.  That  is  the  only  way  I  can  answer  that  question, 
Mr.  Jelke,  not  knowing  the  figures. 

Mr.  JELKE.  But  you  seem  to  intimate  that  if  we  paid  the  10  cents 
a  pound  tax  you  would  allow  us  to  sell  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  If  we  had  some  way  to  keep  you  people  from  doing 
what  is  not  the  proper  thing  and  the  right  thing  to  do — forming  a  con- 
spiracy to  violate  these  laws,  or,  rather,  to  defend  those  who  violate 
them — we  would  have  very  little  trouble.  The  ordinary  retailer,  when 
he  is  prosecuted,  would  very  soon  obey  the  law  if  you  people  did  not 
come  back  of  him  with  all  of  your  capital  and  all  of  your  attorneys  and 
all  your  guarantees. 

Mr.  JELKE.  That  is  your  opinion. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  my  opinion  of  it.  Now,  as  I  have  the  floor,  I 
just  want  to  say  a  few  words  in  connection  with  another  statement  that 
was  contradicted  here.  This  is  a  letter  from  the  Chicago  Butter  and 
Egg  Board.  I  will  read  it. 

CHICAGO  BUTTER  AND  EGG  BOARD, 

Chicago,  January  12,  1901. 

At  the  regular  meeting  of  the  Chicago  Butter  and  Egg  Board,  held  January  12, 
1901,  the  following  statement  was  presented  by  George  W.  Linn,  president  of  the 
Illinois  Dairy  Union,  and  generally  discussed  by  the  members  of  the  board,  and  by 
a  unanimous  vote  it  was  declared  to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  individual  members, 
as  nearly  every  member  has  been  familiar  with  the  unfair  and  unlawful  methods 
pursued  by  the  dealers  in  oleomargarine  for  years. 

JOHX  W.  Low,  President. 
CHARLES  E.  McNEiix,  Secretary. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  555 

CHICAGO,  January  12, 1901. 

Whereas  wo  are  informed  by  newspaper  reports  and  other  sources  that  the 
manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  are  inclined  to  deny  the  assertion  of  the  officers  of 
the  National  Dairy  Union  that  the  retail  trade  sell  oleomargarine  almost  exclusively 
as  butter;  and 

Whereas  from  our  long  experience  in  competition  with  this  class  of  goods  we  have 
repeatedly  and  continually  been  brought  face  to  face  with  the  fact  that  fully  75  per 
cent,  and'possibly  as  high  as  95  per  cent,  goes  to  the  consumer  as  pure  butter,  we, 
as  :m  organization  and  as  individuals,  desire  to  go  on  record  as  corroborating  the 
statement  made  in  that  particular  by  the  officers  of  the  National  Dairy  Union. 

C.  H.  WEAVER  &  Co. 

WAYNE  Low. 

GEO.  W.  LINN  COMPANY. 

J.  DIXON  A  VERY  &  SONS. 

MERRILL  &  ELDRIDGE. 

MOODY,  KING  &  COOK. 

W.  S.  MOORE  &  Co. 

GEO.  C.  CALLAHAN  &  Co. 

GALLAGHER  BROS. 

M.  L.  BROWN  &  Co. 

J.  H.  WHITE  &  Co. 

EARL  BROS. 

S.  L.  BRODIE. 

SCHLOSSER  BROS. 

SPANGENBERG  &  Co. 

GEO.  MlDDENDORF    &  Co. 

O.  E.  WHITCOMB  &  SON. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Mr.  Knight,  is  it  not  a  fact  that  C.  H.  Weaver  &  Co., 
who  sigued  that  statement,  are  one  of  the  largest,  if  not  the  largest, 
manufacturers  of  process  butter  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir;  and  so  far  as  I  know  they  are  not  violating 
any  law.  I  desire  also  to  read  you  this  quotation  from  the  market 
report  of  Saturday,  January  12,  1901.  Tljis  is  the  official  report  of  the 
Chicago  market,  published  by  Howard,  Bartels  &  Co.,  and  is  used  by 
the  butter  trade  generally. 

Receipts  May  1.  1896,  to  January  16,  1897,  1,083,130. 

A  demoralized  feeling  was  shown  at  the  closing  of  the  week  and  prices  some  2  to 
3  cents  lower.  All  the  week  trade  has  dragged  very  slowly,  and  receivers  were 
unable  to  close  out  their  consignments.  Goods  kept  piling  up — not  very  freely,  but 
to  a  greater  extent  than  dealers  cared  to  have  on  their  hands.  The  home  trade  was 
not  sufficient  to  make  any  impression  on  the  stock,  and  there  has  been  scarcely  any 
order  demand.  The  receipts  have  been  fair  and.  show  some  increase  over  last  week, 
but  comprised  a  greater  proportion  of  roll  and  packing  stock,  which  came  forward 
more  freely.  Other  markets  have  all  ruled  dull  and  weaker,  and  possibly  this 
accounts  for  the  increased  receipts  here. 

It  has  not  been  so  much  a  matter  of  price  as  it  has  been  to  sell.  Of  course  dealers 
wished  to  sustain  the  market  as  long  as  they  could,  but  they  daily  undersold  the 
quotations  when  they  had  an  opportunity  to  sell. 

To-day  the  market  was  dull,  and  further  concessions  were  made  by  holders  to 
effect  sales.  Dealers  believe  the  only  way  to  place  the  market  on  a  solid  basis  is  to 
make  prices  that  will  enable  them  to  clean  up  late  accumulations  and  to  encourage 
buying  or  at  least  consumption. 

It  is  generally  admitted  by  dealers  that  the  demoralized  condition  of  the  butter 
market  at  present  is  due  to  the  use  of  butterine.  Dealers  estimated  that  at  least  75 
per  cent  of  the  retailers  are  selling  butterine. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  open  weather  accounts  for  the 
dull  butterine  and  butter  business*? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  open  weather?    I  do  not  know,  Mr.  Miller. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  it  is  a  fact. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  for  information  regarding  the 
condition  of  the  matter  between  Collector  Coyne  and  myself.  There 
has  been  some  testimony  sent  out  to  Mr.  Coyne  for  him  to  pass  upon, 
I  believe. 


556  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  ALLEN.  That  statement  was  sent  out  the  other  day.  I  sup- 
pose a  response  will  be  made. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  am  not  going  to  be  in  Washington  all  the  time,  and 
I  do  not  know  what  course  Mr.  Coyne  will  take.  But  in  case  there  is 
any  answer  made,  I  have  a  statement  here  which  I  will  not  read,  but 
which  I  will  leave  with  the  committee.  I  do  not  ask  that  it  shall  go 
into  the  report. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Hand  it  to  the  clerk,  then. 

Mr.  KNIGHT  (after  complying  with  Senator  Allen's  request).  I  have 
here  a  number  of  statistics  and  facts — not  arguments,  or  anything  out- 
side of  facts — that  J  should  like  to  file  with  the  committee.  Here,  for 
instance,  are  some  facts  which  you  gentlemen  will  want— -a  detailed 
statement  of  the  number  of  oleomargarine  dealers  in  the  various  States, 
for  instance,  and  the  number  who  are  doing  business  in  States  where 
it  is  contrary  to  law  to  sell  colored  oleomargarine,  and  the  number  who 
are  doing  business  in  States  where  it  is  legal  to  do  it.  There  are  quite 
a  number  ot  other  things  here  which  I  think  the  committee  will  find  of 
value. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  What  is  the  basis  of  your  statistics? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  Government  reports.  All  of  them  come  from  Gov- 
ernment reports. 

Senator  MONEY.  We  will  get  that  information  from  official  sources, 
Mr.  Knight,  and  would  very  much  rather  have  it  in  that  way. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  These  figures  are  from  official  sources. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  know  it;  but  they  come  through  you.  We  would 
rather  have  them  through  the  regular  official  channel.  We  are  at  lib 
erty  to  call  on  the  Departments  for  all  the  information  they  have,  yon 
know. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  only  thing  was  that  I  wanted  to  call  attention  to 
those  things  here. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  may  be. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  1  will  at  least  ask  permission  to  file  this  map  [exhibit- 
ing map],  to  be  printed  in  the  proceedings.  There  is  a  diagram  there 
showing  the  price  of  butter,  and  a  map  showing  the  laws  of  various 
States. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Is  that  official? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  One  is  from  Senator  Mason's  report  and  the  other  is 
from  the  Agricultural  Department.  They  are  both  official.  Here  is-a 
resolution  passed  by  the  Chicago  Butter  and  Egg  Board. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Will  inserting  these  things  delay  the  printing  of 
this  report  1 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No,  Senator.  I  think  you  will  find  that  they  are  all 
made  up  and  in  the  possession  of  the  Government  Printing  Office. 

| The  papers  referred  to  above  are  as  follows:] 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


557 


558 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


MONTHLY  PRODUCTION 

OF 

OLEOMARGARINE 

IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

MONTSIYA™AGE  PRICES 
INNEWYOIIK. 

MONTH 

JANUARY 

n 
> 

JO 

MILLION      POUNDS- 

!-*•    (->• 

^COCO^OlOi'SOOCDOl-1 

CENTS   PER    POUND 

•-'•'-'•^tOCOtODorOGoCO 

^.Cioooro^asoooto 

rj 

| 

T-  J 

"<* 

• 

,^— 

—  — 

—  P—  - 

^^ 

^ 

MARCH 
APRIL 
MAY 
.JUNE 

55 

CD 
0 

..- 
— 

....! 


1 

„_- 

- 
— 

*--, 

—  •*, 

k>^. 

-•, 

JULV 

g^aiBeR 

OCTOBER 
NOVEMBER 

.... 

S 

....... 

-J 

'! 

T* 

--r 

p—> 

—  - 

—  - 

—  - 

i 

^ 

-*• 
? 

FEBRUARY 
MARCH 
APRIL 
MAY 
OUNE. 
JULV 

g^^B^R 
OCTOBELR 
NOVEMBER 

DECEMfiEa. 

FEBRUARY 
MARCH 
APRIL. 
MAY 

65 

CD 

55 

r- 

•- 

N,.  .,     . 

—  " 


..J. 
^__ 
—  ' 

rr~ 

S 

^ 

a 

^••H 

E 

, 

i 

v—  - 
-r 

J  

,1 

1 

'1 

; 

•i 
•> 

^T 

•*», 

^*i 

^-i 
j 

^** 

V 

V 

\ 
-±- 

>• 

•>— 

c 

•ci 

/ 

A, 

^j» 

JUNE. 
J'JLV 
AUGUST 

NOVCMBER 

DECEMBER 

FEBRUARY 
MARCH 
APRIL 
MAY 
JUNE, 
JULY 
AUBUST 
SEPTEMBER 
OCTOBER 
NOVEMBER 
DECEMBER 

SwJBv 

MARCH 
APRIL, 
MAY 
JUNE 
JULY 
AUGUST 
SEPTEMBER 
OCTOBER 
NOVEMBER 
DECEMBER 

FEBRUARY 
MARCH 
APRIL, 
MAY 
JUNE 
JULY 

SEPTEMBER 
OCTOBER 
NOVEMBER 

1  J^A"^ 
F  E  B  R  GARY 

CD 

ro 
55 

CD 
OJ 

00 
CD 

•r^ 
55 

CD 
Ol 

1 

-"-•- 

IL-L 

—  -— 

22: 

^-~- 

4—  — 
^-~. 

! 

t 
"T" 

jjg; 

S3 

S3 

i 

in 

!••! 

EZ 

: 

i 

4 

rt 

^— 

1 

J 

—  k 
^ 

> 

i 

> 

MARCH 
APRIL 
MAY 

JjiKS 

gcPTTO^EBRER 
NOVEMBER 

•g^gJAi^" 

TEBRUARY 

X^RR,CUH 
MAV 
JUNE1 
JULV 

NOVEMBER 

g^AR^ 
FEBRUARY 
MARCH 
APRIL 
MAY 
vJUNE. 
JULY 

SEPTEMBER 
OCTOBER 
NOVEMBER 

gA'gu^RV5-'* 
FEBRUARY 

55 

CD 
CD 

65 

CD 
XJ 

55 

CD 
00 

^....^......j..  ..............     ,;,.,       • 

i 

^ 

i 

— 

•^s, 

APRIL, 
MAY 
JUNE 
JULY 
AUGUST 
SEPTEMBER 
OCTOBER 

55 

CD 
CD 

Ri 

•* 

DOC 

-3d 

sat 

±   C 

>jnc 

f\  C 

d 

X)  • 
N 

-1  C 

Oil 

30  C 
111 

h 

D   (. 
N 

i 

-»•    h 
D    *• 

C 

h 

t- 

-k    ). 

^  c 

—    ^ 

J3  ( 

ON 

^=~= 

j.  to  to  to  t 

»  o  to  ^  c 
nod  yid  s 

0  C 

72  C 
IN 

oc 
c  c 
10 

0  C 
D  [ 

0 
\J 

NOVEMBER 
DECEMBER 

FIG.  15. — Diagram  showins  monthly  average  prices  of  butter  and  total  monthly  production  of  oleo- 
margarine for  the  years  1890  to  1899. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  559 

Now,  there  is  another  matter  that  has  been  in  question  here.  Mr. 
Miller  made  the  statement  to  you  that  some  40  or  50  pounds  of  oleo 
oil  came  from  the  caul  fat  of  a  steer.  I  have  here  Iowa  Agricultural 
Bulletin  No.  20,  showing  the  weight  of  18  fatted  steers  fed  at  that 
station,  and  the  amount  of  caul  fat  therein,  as  taken  out  by  Swift  & 
Co.,  of  Chicago,  and  reported  to  Director  James  Wilson,  now  Secretary 
of  Agriculture.  That  bulletin  shows  that  the  average  amount  of 
caul  fat  in  steers  weighing  on  an  average  1,508  pounds  was  37.66 
pounds.  The  statement  made  before  the  Agricultural  Committee  of 
the  Senate 

Senator  ALLEN.  That  is  a  pretty  good  steer. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  statement  made  before  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Agriculture  in  188(5  by  Elmer  E.  Washburn,  a  live-stock  dealer  in  Chi- 
cago, showed  that  from  148,893  head  of  cattle  slaughtered  in  that  city 
by  one  of  the  largest  packing  concerns,  there  was  an  average  of  61.5 
pounds  of  fat  in  those  animals  used  in  oleo  oil;  and  that  those  61.5 
pounds  made  28.1  pounds  of  oleo  oil,  which  goes  to  prove  that  there  is 
less  than  1  pound  of  oleo  oil  to  2  pounds  of  fat. 

The  oleomargarine  people,  in  all  of  their  claims  before  this  committee 
and  in  other  places,  have  stated  that  the  fat  used  from  the  steer  or 
cattle  was  only  the  fattest  and  choicest  caul  fat;  and  Mr.  Miller  made 
the  statement  to  you  that  if  they  used  any  other  it  would  be  tallowy. 

According  to  this  report  of  Secretary  Wilson,  there  are  on  an  aver- 
age but  37.66  pounds  of  caul  fat  to  the  steer  of  1,508  pounds,  and  it  is 
well  known  that  cattle  that  are  marketed  will  not  average  over  1,200 
pounds.  That  would  be  a  heavy  average,  would  it  not? 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  should  think  it  would  be  a  full  average,  at  least. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Under  those  circumstances,  I  think  you  can  go  to  the 
bottom  of  the  thing,  and  find  that  they  can  not  make  more.than  15 
pounds  of  oleo  oil  from  the  caul  fat  of  the  average  animal.  Counting 
15  pounds  to  the  average  animal,  and  counting  5,000,000  cattle  slaugh- 
tered last  year,  they  have  recourse  to  caul  fat  for  the  making  of  but 
75,000,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil.  There  were  1 12,000,000  pounds  of  oleo 
oil  exported,  and  24,4'  0,000  pounds  used  in  oleomargarine,  a  total,  I 
think,  of  over  166.000,000  pounds,  with  a  capacity  of  but  75,000,000 
pounds  of  oleo  oil  from  caul  fat. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  supposed  they  used  all  the  fat. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  must  do  it  in  order  to  get  out  everything,  I  should 
say.  Now,  those  are  simply  statistics,  gentlemen. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Would  that  lift  them  out  entirely  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  tSTot  at  28  pounds  to  the  head;  no,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Many  of  these  animals,  as  I  understand,  are  calves 
and  other  animals  that  have  not  much  fat  in  them. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  On  an  average,  according  to  Mr.  Washburn's  state- 
ment, they  get  an  average  of  28.1  pounds  of  oleo  oil  from  each  animal. 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  was  one  special  lot. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  no.     One  hundred  and  forty-seven  thousand  head. 

Senator  MONEY.  Whose  report  is  that? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  the  report  of  Elmer  E.  Washburn,  a  live-stock 
dealer  of  Chicago,  who  appeared  on  behalf  of  the  oleomargarine  makers. 
It  is  in  that  record. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  suppose  you  want  to  discredit  that  report  by  those 
figures,  do  you? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  1  am  not  discrediting  it  at  all. 

Senator  MONEY.  Oh,  yes;  you  make  it  15  pounds,  and  he  says  it 
is  28. 


560  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  I  say  caul  fat.  He  does  not  say  caul  fat.  He  has 
some  figures  there  giving  the  amouut  of  oleo  oil  made  from  those  ani- 
mals at  28.1  pounds.  Now,  if  you  can  get  28.1  pounds  of  oleo  oil  direct 
from  the  animal,  from  5,000,000  animals  you  ;ire  getting  140,000,000 
pounds.  But  we  have  records  of  106,000, 00  /  pounds  which  are  used. 
Now,  where  does  it  come  from? 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Well,  we  are  willing  to  have  the  matter  investigated. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  rather  than  have  it  investigated,  I  will  cut  out  the 
whole  thing,  on  account  of  time.  1  do  not  propose  to  put  in  anything 
here  that  is  going  to  continue  these  hearings. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  are  entirely  willing  to  conclude  the  hearings, 
provided  you  have  the  last  word? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  no. 

Senator  MONEY.  Whenever  anybody  has  made  a  speech  on  the  other 
side  you  have  come  in  here  with  a  whole  lot  of  fresh  matter.  That  is 
what  you  have  been  doing  all  the  time.  After  it  has  been  announced 
that  your  side  has  closed,  and  the  majority  of  the  committee  has  voted 
to  close  the  hearings,  and  every  time  anybody  else  said  anything,  you 
came  out  here  with  a  lot  of  new  matter;  and  then  you  want  the  pro- 
ceedings closed. 

Mr.  KNIHGT.  Oh,  no. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  a  fact;  that  is  the  record  of  the  committee. 
Now,  I  have  not  the  slightest  objection  to  hearing  everything  you  have 
to  say.  You  have  brought  out  some  very  interesting  matter  there. 
But,  still,  it  is  a  fact  that  you  happen  to  be  here,  and  you  take  the  floor 
and  bring  out  a  lot  of  new  things  and  then  propose  to  shut  down  on 
the  investigation. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  I  made  the  statement  before  the  committee  that 
if  what  I  said  was  to  prolong  the  hearings,  I  would  shut  off  right 
away. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  never  shut  off  as  long  as  anybody  says  any- 
thing on  the  other  side;  I  have  noticed  that.  Now,  you  can  give  us  all 
the  information  you  have.  I  am  willing  to  stay  here  and  listen  to  you 
for  a  week ;  but 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  Senator,  will  you  put  to  the  committee  the  sug- 
gestion that  I  made  regarding  the  condensation  or  the  briefing  of  this 
testimony? 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  think  the  committee  will  take  up  this  matter  and 
edit  it.  I  have  no  doubt  the  chairman  will  attend  to  that. 

Senator  MONEY.  As  Senator  Allen  very  truthfully  said,  an  immense 
amount  of  what  has  been  said  here  is  merely  cumulative  evidence.  The 
same  things  have  been  stated  over  and  over  again  by  the  people  on 
both  sides. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  suggested,  Senator  Proctor,  that  we  should  take  up 
on  our  side  the  testimony  which  has  been  submitted,  and  point  out  our 
strong  points.  My  suggestion  was  that  we  should  make  it  in  the  shape 
of  an  index  rather  than  a  brief,  and  not  make  an  argument  at  all,  but 
simply  call  attention  to  the  facts  which  we  claimed  to  have  proven. 
It  was  my  idea  to  state  the  different  points  we  made,  and  under  those 
heads  to  group  the  statements  of  the  people  who  have  appeared  here 
and  addressed  your  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  facilitate  matters  very  much  indeed,  I 
think. 

[After  informal  discussion  it  was  agreed,  and  so  announced  by  the 
chairman,  that  after  the  printing  of  the  testimony  both  sides  would  be 
expected,  within  a  reasonable  time,  to  brief  the  case  according  to  their 


OLEOMARGARINE.  561 

respective  views,  calling  attention  to  those  particular  parts  of  the  tes- 
timony deemed  important.] 

Mr.  Knight  agreed  to  present,  in  due  time,  the  views  of  his  side  in 
favor  of  the  bill.  Mr.  Schell  agreed,  for  his  clients,  to  furnish  a  brief 
resume  of  the  proceedings  before  the  committee,  and  to  furnish  a  brief 
on  the  constitutional  questions  involved,  as  he  had  theretofore  promised 
members  of  the  committee. 

It  was  thereupon  announced  by  the  chairman  that  after  the  honora- 
ble Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  Hon.  James  W.  Wadsworth,  a 
member  of  the  House  of  Kepresentatives,  should  have  been  heard,  the 
hearings  on  the  pending  bill  would  be  closed. 

The  committee  thereupon,  at  11.40  o'clock,  took  a  recess  until  12.15 
o'clock  p.  m. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  committee  resumed  its  session. 

Present:  Senators  Hansbrough  (acting  chairman),  Warren,  Foster, 
Bate,  Money,  Heitfeld,  Allen,  and  Dolliver, 

Also,  Charles  Y.  Knight,  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Union; 
Hon.  William  M.  Springer,  of  Springfield,  111.,  representing  the  National 
Live  Stock  Association;  Frank  W.  Tilliughast,  representing  the  Ver- 
mont Manufacturing  Company,  of  Providence,  K.  I.;  Charles  E.  Schell, 
representing  the  Ohio  Butterine  Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  John 
F.  Jelke,  representing  Braun  &  Fitts,  Chicago,  111. ;  W.  E.  Miller,  repre- 
senting Armour  &  Co.,  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  and  others. 

STATEMENT   OF   HON.  LYMAN   J.  GAGE,  SECRETARY  OF  THE 

TREASURY. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Senator  HANSBROUGH).  Gentlemen  of  the 
committee,  Secretary  Gage  was  invited  to  appear  before  the  committee 
to  answer  some  questions  that  were  to  be  put  by  Senator  Money,  I 
understand. 

Senator  MONEY.  No;  I  do  not  care  to  trouble  the  Secretary.  I  merely 
asked  that  he  be  invited  here,  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to 
express  (if  he  saw  fit)  his  views  on  the  pending  bill,  which  is  a  revenue 
measure.  At  all  events,  it  purports  to  be  a  revenue  measure. 

Senator  BATE.  Of  course  you  have  si  en  the  bill,  Mr.  Secretary. 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes,  sir.  I  always  respond  to  the  invitations  of 
the  committees,  whether  it  is  agreeable  or  not.  I  would  prefer  to 
answer  questions,  if  any  gentleman  wishes  to  ask  them.  If,  however, 
you  wish  me  to  state  my  views  of  the  bill,  I  can  do  so  very  briefly. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  should  think  that  would  be  better,  Mr.  Secretary. 
We  should  be  very  glad  to  hear  your  views  of  the  bill. 

Secretary  GAGE.  Of  course  I  only  feel  at  liberty  to  state  my  views 
as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  only  upon  that  part  of  the  bill 
which  involves  the  question  of  revenue.  1  .might  have  personal  views 
which  go  far  beyond  those;  but  you  would  probably  not  care  much 
about  them. 

There  is,  in  my  opinion,  an  objection  to  the  bill  on  either  theory.  If 
it  is  a  revenue  producer,  it  is  superfluous;  we  do  not  need  it.  If  it  is 
not  a  revenue  producer,  then  the  title  of  the  bill  is  a  misnomer,  and  it 
is  inoperative  in  the  name  of  revenue.  It  seems  to  me  that  on  either 
theory  there  are  serious  objections  to  it. 

I  think  that  covers  all  1  care  to  say  directly  on 'the  subject. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  pretty  good. 

Senator  FOSTER.  It  is  right  to  the  point,  Mr.  Secretary. 

S.  Rep.  2043 36 


562  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Have  you  some  statistical  matter  there,  Mr.  Secre- 
tary, wbicli  you  desire  to  submit? 

Secretary  GAGE.  No,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  any  members  of  the  committee  desire 
to  ask  the  Secretary  any  questions? 

Senator  FOSTER.  I  suppose  the  points  you  have  made  bear  directly 
on  the  question  of  revenue,  and  not  at  all  on  the  merits  of  the  bill 
otherwise? 

Secretary  GAGE.  So  far,  I  have  not  expressed  any  views  on  the  merits 
of  the  bill. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  only  speak  of  it  as  a  revenue  measure! 

Secretary  GAGE.  Only  as  a  revenue  measure. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  can  you  tell  us  what  has 
been  the  experience,  in  a  general  way,  of  your  Department  in  the  col- 
lection of  the  revenue  on  oleomargarine?  You  know,  of  course,  that 
there  is  now  a  2-cent  tax  on  it. 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  the  revenue  is  well  collected. 
There  has  been  considerable  discussion  of  that  subject  between  the 
Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  (especially  Commissioner  Wilson) 
and  myself,  at  different  times;  and  we  think  we  are  cheated  to  some 
extent,  as  we  are  in  all  revenue  matters. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  bound  to  be  a  certain  percentage 
of  loss,  of  course. 

Secretary  GAGE.  There  is  bound  to  be  a  certain  percentage  of  loss. 
That  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  we  receive  "conscience  money"  from 
people  who  say  they  have  defrauded  the  revenue  department,  and  it  has 
come  to  be  a  matter  of  conscience  with  them. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Then  you  think  there  is  "moonshine  butterine" 
made  ? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Undoubtedly.  Judging  by  the  best  means  of  infor- 
mation we  have  (and  we  have  to  guess  at  it  to  some  extent,  for,  of  course, 
the  unknown  is  not  known)  we  estimate  that  we  are  cheated  out  of  per- 
haps 7  or  8  per  cent  of  the  revenue. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  suppose  there  is  no  surplus  in  the  conscience  fund, 
is  there? 

Secretary  GAGE.  No;  and  there  never  will  be.  (Laughter.]  That  is 
the  only  fund  which  will  never  be  troubled  with  a  surplus. 

Senator  MONEY.  In  collecting  other  revenue  taxes,  like  that  on 
whisky,  for  instance,  is  the  loss  as  great  as  on  oleomargarine? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes;  I  should  suppose  it  is  about  the  same  percent- 
age. That  loss  occurs  mostly  in  the  "rnoonshining"  business.  In  the 
large  establishments  it  is  probable  that  the  tax  is  absolutely  and  fully 
collected. 

Senator  BATE.  Then  I  suppose  the  losses  in  oleomargarine  internal 
revenue  collections  are  about  on  a  par  with  the  losses  in  all  other  reve- 
nue collections? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Well,  they  are  on  a  par  with  the  losses  in  most  of 
the  revenue  collections.  There  is  not  any  great  disparity. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  what  about  the  percentage 
of  prosecutions,  as  compared  with  the  prosecutions  in  other  lines? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Offenses  against  the  oleomargarine  internal-revenue 
law  are  as  vigorously  prosecuted  as  any  of  the  other  offenses  against 
the  revenue  laws,  when  they  come  to  our  knowledge.  It  is  the  duty  of 
the  collector  of  internal  revenue  in  each  district  to  use  his  agents  and 
inspect  as  thoroughly  and  carefully  as  he  can  the  manufacturers  of 
oleomargarine  and  dealers  in  it,  and  to  see  that  they  are  paying  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  563 

revenue.  Complaints  frequently  come  to  us  that  they  are  passing  it 
off  as  butter.  We  always  inquire  into  such  matters.  While  the  internal 
revenue  department  does  not  consider  itself  clothed  with  police  duties, 
exactly  (its  duty  being  to  collect  the  revenue),  we  pursue  all  cases  of 
persons  violating  the  regulations  in  regard  to  stamping  and  marking 
the  product  when  they  are  brought  to  our  attention;  and  there  have 
been  a  great  many  prosecutions. 

I  have  here  a  letter  which  I  picked  up  this  morning,  dated  November 
24,  1900,  which  illustrates  something.  It  is  a  letter  from  one  of  our 
agents  in  Cleveland,  Ohio,  addressed  to  Commissioner  Wilson.  This 
agent  was  directed  to  inquire  into  the  dealings  of  a  certain  gentleman 
in  a  small  Ohio  town,  because  the  report  of  one  of  the  manufacturers 
of  butterine  set  forth  sales  to  this  gentleman,  whom  we  will  call  Mr. 
Brown  for  the  purposes  of  the  illustration.  You  know,  gentlemen,  that 
all  of  the  manufacturers  have  to  report  their  entire  sales  to  the  Depart- 
ment;  and  the  report  of  this  particular  manufacturer  came  along,  show- 
ing the  sale  of  228  pounds  of  butteriue,  in  three  different  lots,  to  this 
Mr.  Brown,  in  this  town  in  Ohio.  Mr.  Brown  had  no  license  to  sell 
butteriue,  and  we  made  an  investigation.  We  found  that  he  was  not 
selling  butterine,  but  was  simply  ordering  it  for  sundry  persons,  in 
their  behalf,  and  ordering  it  to  be  sent  to  them  direct  for  consumption. 
Now,  it  is  a  somewhat  singular  fact  that  these  parties  for  whom  Mr. 
Brown  acted  were  all  dealers  in  milk,  and  were  selling  all  their  milk 
to  Mr.  Brown,  who  was  in  the  cheese  business. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Mr.  Secretary,  was  that  a  mere  cover,  or  was  it  a 
bona  fide  transaction  upon  Mr.  Brown's  part? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Oh,  it  was  entirely  in  good  faith.  Mr.  Brown  lived 
in  this  village,  and  these  milk  dealers  brought  him  all  their  milk,  and 
they  wanted  butterine. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Of  course  you  will  recognize  the  fact  that  if  Mr. 
Brown,  in  collusion  with  these  other  parties,  was  simply  resorting  to 
that  device  as  a  method  of  avoiding  the  tax  law,  he  would  be  guilty  of 
violating  the  tax  law  and  should  be  prosecuted? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Oh,  yes.  He  did  not  retail  the  butterine;  he  made 
no  profit  on  it.  He  simply  acted  in  their  behalf. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Were  the  parties  for  whom  he  acted  in  the 
retail  business,  or  simply  consumers  ? 

Secretary  GAGE.  They  were  simply  consumers — farmers. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Is  your  inspecting  force  in  these  districts  adequate 
to  investigate  and  prosecute  these  cases? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Well,  fairly  so.  We  have  a  good  many  of  what 
are  called  revenue  agents  under  the  collectors  of  internal  revenue. 
They  pay  attention  to  all  the  departments  of  revenue.  We  do  not  have 
special  agents  to  inquire  into  the  butteriue  business  who  are  separate 
and  distinct  from  the  agents  who  look  after  violations  of  other  branches 
of  revenue. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  No ;  I  understand  that. 

Secretary  GAGE.  They  watch  the  tobacco  dealer;  they  watch  the 
whisky  dealer;  they  watch  the  brewer;  and  they  watch  the  oleomar- 
garine man.  They  plan  to  cover  them  all,  and  to  drop  in  and  inspect, 
and  catch  them  if  they  can. 

Senator  ALLEN.  They  depend  largely  on  outside  sources  for  their 
information,  do  they  not? 

Secretary  GAGE.  A  good  deal.  They  get  a  good  many  utips"  from 
the  outside. 


564  OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Your  revenue  agents,  Mr.  Secretary,  are 
expected  to  visit  these  factories  and  to  take  observations  with  respect 
to  the  quality  of  the  ingredients  constituting  oleomargarine,  are  they 
not? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  are  their  opportunities  for  observa- 
tion in  that  direction  ? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Oh,  they  are  ample  in  these  large  establishments. 
They  are  all  open  to  our  agents. 

Senator  BATE.  Have  you  scientific  inspectors  to  investigate  what 
the  component  parts  of  this  product  are? 

Secretary  GAGE.  No;  I  do  not  think  we  have.  We  put  it  to  the 
test  frequently,  however.  We  get  samples  and  have  analyses  made  of 
the  product.  That  is  to  say,  we  have  done  so  in  the  past;  I  do  not 
know  what  we  are  doing  just  at  this  moment. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Your  agents,  however,  are  not  all  experts  in  the 
examination  of  oleomargarine,  are  they? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Oh,  no — no. 

Senator  ALLEN.  So  that  they  might  be  imposed  upon,  as  well  as  the 
ordinary  intelligent  citizen? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Very  easily. 

Senator  ALLEN.  They  might  walk  into  a  place  and  call  for  butter, 
and  oleomargarine  might  be  handed  to  them  as  butter;  and  unless  they 
took  it  to  some  person  competent  to  make  an  analysis  of  it,  they  might 
not  know  the  difference? 

Secretary  GAGE.  That  is  quite  true. 

Senator  BATE.  Do  you  keep  agents  at  any  of  these  large  establish- 
ments? 

Secretary  GAGE.  I  do  not  think  we  do  keep  any  regular  watch  on 
them. 

Senator  ALLEN.  You  take  the  same  precautions  respecting  this 
article  that  you  do  regarding  liquors? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Except  that  we  do  keep  gangers — men  who  gauge 
the  quantities  of  liquor — or  storekeepers,  in  the  bonded  warehouses. 
We  go  a  little  further  with  the  liquors,  because  the  temptation  to  evade 
the  law  is  immensely  greater. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Then  you  do  not  keep  such  agents  in  these  large 
establishments  which  manufacture  oleomargarine? 

Secretary  GAGE.  No. 

Senator  MONEY.  These  storekeepers  take  note  of  the  quantity  of 
liquor  made,  do  they  ? 

Secretary  GAGE.  They  take  simply  the  proof  and  the  quantity. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Of  course  the  liquor  can  not  go  out  without  the 
consent  of  the  Government? 

Secretary  GAGE.  No,  sir;  but  the  tax  on  liquor  is  $1.10  a  gallon, 
while  that  on  butterine  is  2  cents  per  pound,  so  that  the  temptation 
is  very  much  greater  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  only  thing  with  which  you  are  concerned  is 
the  tax? 

Secretary  GAGE.  That  is  the  main  thing,  of  course. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  remark  you  have  just  made,  Mr.  Secretary, 
suggests  this  question :  You  say  the  greater  the  tax  the  greater  the 
incentive  to  fraud.  The  same  rule  would  apply  here,  would  it  not? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Undoubtedly. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  the  instructions  of  your  Department, 
Mr.  Secretary,  require  the  agents  who  visit  these  manufactories  to 
report  to  you  with  respect  to  the  puriiy  of  the  ingredients  used  ? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  565 

Secretary  GAGE.  No ;  I  do  not  think  so. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  that  you  have  no  means  of  knowing 
exactly  what  constitutes  oleomargarine? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Except  by  inspecting  the  processes  and  methods 
of  the  manufacturers. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  product  itself,  I  presume? 

Secretary  GAGE.  And  they  make  a  general  examination  of  the  product 
itself. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  suppose  the  processes  of  manufacture  are  as  dif- 
ferent as  the  shades  of  color,  are  they  not? 

Secretary  GAGE.  I  do  not  exactly  know  how  many  methods  of  com- 
pounding the  manufacturers  have.  I  think,  however,  that  they  follow 
pretty  closely  the  same  general  line. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Mr.  Secretary,  have  you  a  sufficient  revenue  force 
to  look  after  the  observance  of  that  portion  of  the  oleomargarine  law 
which  relates  to  the  putting  up  of  the  packages  and  the  quantities  in 
which  it  may  be  sold  under  these  licenses? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Well,  1  think,  perhaps,  we  have  not.  No;  I  do  not 
think  we  have. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  We  had  here  the  other  day  packages  of  oleomar- 
garine said  to  have  been  bought  in  retail  stores  in  Chicago,  in  which 
the  mark,  the  name  required  by  law  to  be  affixed,  was  turned  under  in 
such  a  way  as  not  to  be  noticeable. 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.,  Then  there  were  other  packages  on  which  the 
mark  was  placed  in  such  an  obscure  way  that  it  would  require  a  person 
of  good  eyesight,  in  some  instances,  to  notice  it.  The  packages  were 
very  faintly  marked.  We  also  had  statements  in  regard  to  quantities 
being  bought  above  the  amount  permitted  by  the  law  to  be  sold  by  the 
retailer,  and  the  general  impression  was  left  on  the  minds  of  the  com- 
mittee that  your  revenue  collectors  were  somewhat  indifferent,  at  least 
in  some  cities,  after  they  had  collected  their  tax.  The  impression  was 
also  left  that  they  were  without  adequate  force  to  give  attention  to  all 
these  details. 

Secretary  GAGE.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Department  has  its  main 
eye  to  the  revenue,  for  that  is  really  its  business.  It  is  not  clothed, 
except  indirectly,  with  what  you  may  call  police  power.  Besides,  there 
are  places  where  the  force  would  be  entirely  inadequate.  Take  the  city 
of  Chicago,  for  instance.  1  think  there  are  4,000  retail  dealers  there, 
and  it  is  impossible  with  a  dozen  men  to  keep  a  close  watch  over  4,000 
dealers  scattered  over  20  square  miles.  But  when  we  do  find  them 
infringing  the  law,  we  make  it  troublesome  for  them. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  submit  a  question  to  the  Sec- 
retary ? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  sir;  if  it  is  agreeable  to  him. 

Secretary  GAGE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  The  difficulties  which  have  been  called  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  committee  in  regard  to  the  selling  of  oleomargarine  or  but- 
terine  seem  to  relate  to  the  fact  that  the  retail  dealer  may  break  the 
original  package  and  deal  it  out  in  smaller  quantities  to  suit  the  desires 
of  the  purchaser;  and  in  so  doing  he  can  sell  oleomargarine  or  butter- 
ine  to  a  consumer  who  presumes  that  he  is  buying  butter. 

Now,  I  desire  to  ask  you  whether  it  would  be  possible  to  make  such 
rules  and  regulations  (if  the  law  so  authorized)  requiring  the  selling  of 
oleomargarine  to  the  consumer  by  the  agent  of  the  manufacturer  or  the 
retail  dealer  in  the  original  package,  without  breaking  even  the  stamp 
itself  around  the  original  package,  that  the  selling  of  oleomargarine  for 


566  OLEOMARGAKINE. 

batter  would  be  prevented,  and  it  would  have  to  be  sold  for  what  it 
really  is  ? 

Secretary  GAGE.  I  think  so.  1  have  read  the  amendment  or  substi- 
tute bill  recommended  by  the  minority  report  of  the  House  committee. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  what  is  known  as  the  Wadsworth  bill? 

Secretary  GAGE.  It  provides  a  method  of  putting  up  oleomargarine 
in  packages  of  1  pound  or  not  more  than  2  pounds,  I  believe.  Am  I  right! 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  right. 

Secretary  GAGE.  They  are,  as  I  understand,  required  to  be  separate 
and  distinct  from  each  other,  with  the  revenue  stamp  wound  around 
them  and  sealed  as  effectively  as  a  box  of  cigars  is  with  its  stamp.  I 
can  not  imagine  any  reason  why  that  would  not  be  a  very  effective 
means  of  preventing  the  dealer  from  opening  packages  and  selling  the 
product  as  butter.  The  abuse  in  that  respect  would  be  reduced  to  an 
infinitesimal  amount.  Of  course  the  dealer  could  cut  a  package  in 
two,  obliterate  the  stamp,  and  sell  half  a  pound  at  a  time  as  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  That  is  possible  with  cigars  and  everything  else,  is 
it  not? 

Secretary  GAGE.  It  is  possible  in  every  department;  but  the  temp- 
tation would  be  so  small  and  the  penalties  so  great  that  my  opinion  is 
that  such  deception  would  scarcely  be  practiced  at  all. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  That  is  to  say,  if  the  dealer  is  required  to  sell  it  to 
the  consumer  in  the  original  packages  and  is  not  allowed  to  break  them? 

Secretary  GAGE.  That  is  what  I  mean. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  would  almost  do  away  with  the  possibility  of  fraud 
on  the  consumer? 

Secretary  GA.GE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  a  question,  please? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  consent  to  answer  a  question  by 
Mr.  Knight,  who  is  the  secretary  of  the  Dairymen's  Association? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  is  a  penalty,  is  there  not,  Mr.  Secretary,  for  fail- 
ing to  stamp  the  retailers'  packages  now? 

Secretary  GAGE.  You  mean  for  failing  to  stamp  the  word  u  Oleo- 
margarine" on  the  wrapper? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir. 

Secretary  GAGE.  There  is. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  that  penalty  is  quite  severe,  is  it  not? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes,  sir;  it  is. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  it  is  a  fact,  is  it  not,  that  the  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Revenue  has  also  made  a  ruling  to  the  eilect  that  it  is  an 
evasion  of  the  law  to  conceal  the  marks  or  to  place  them  on  paper  of 
the  same  color  as  the  ink? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Now,  what  is  the  difference  between  the  two  classes  of 
evasions — one  of  removing  the  stamp  and  the  other  of  failing  to  affix 
the  stamp? 

Secretary  GAGE.  I  think  there  is  a  great  deal  of  difference.  Under 
the  proposition  which  we  have  just  been  discussing  the  package  of 
oleomargarine  itself  will  have  deeply  imprinted  into  it  the  word  "Oleo- 
margarine." It  would  make  very  little  difference,  indeed,  whether  the 
wrapper  had  a  stamp  on  it  or  not.  The  stamp  on  the  product  itself 
would  have  to  be  clear  and  distinct,  and  it  would  have  to  be  imprinted 
by  the  manufacturer.  Once  fairly  imprinted,  it  could  only  be  obliter- 
ated by  the  dealer  taking  it  and  mixing  it  up,  packing  it  in  a  tub,  call 
ing  it  butter,  and  then  retailing  it  as  butter.  He  could  do  tlr.it  if  he 
did  not  get  caught  at  it.  He  could  evade  in  that  way  the  proposition 


OLEOMARGARINE.  567 

we  have  just  been  talking  about,  as  lie  can  evade  the  present  law  by 
having  his  wrappers  printed  just  on  the  border  line  between  reada- 
bility and  obscurity.  And  many  do  undoubtedly  try  to  keep  just  on 
that  border  line,  where  they  can  say  to  the  revenue  agents,  "It  is 
printed,"  and  to  the  man  who  buys  it,  "It  is  not  printed." 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  see. 

Secretary  GAGE.  There  is  a  border  line  that  is  hazardous  for  us  and 
hazardous  for  them,  too;  but  it  exists  in  every  other  branch  of  the 
business. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Is  not  that  a  practical  evasion  of  the  law  as  it  now 
stands? 

Secretary  GAGE.  They  do  evade  it  in  that  way;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Should  not  they  be  prosecuted  ? 

Secretary  GAGE.  We  do  prosecute  them  where  it  is  a  fair,  clear 
violation. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Mr.  Secretary,  if  the  manufacturers  were  directed 
to  put  up  their  original  I  and  2  pound  packages  in  sucb  manner  as  the 
Department  prescribed,  could  they  not  be  put  up  in  such  a  way  that  it 
would  be  almost  impossible  to  have  any  fraud  perpetrated  until  the 
package  itself  was  broken  f 

Secretary  GAGE.  The  package  would  have  to  be  broken  first. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Then,  if  the  manufacturer  himself  put  up  the 
product  in  original  packages  in  the  way  prescribed,  would  there  be 
very  much  danger  of  anyone's  attempting  to  break  those  original 
packages  ? 

Secretary  GAGE.  I  think  very  little.     That  is  my  judgment. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Now,  Mr.  Secretary,  as  to  the  7  per  cent  of  fraud 
which  you  estimated  might  possibly  exist  at  the  present  time,  is  any 
part  of  that  attributed  to  the  present  manufacturers  known  to  the 
Department,  and  who  are  paying  the  2  cent  tax?  You  have  no  diffi- 
culty with  fraud  in  that  line,  have  you! 

Secretary  GAGE.  None  at  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  so  far  as  the  manufacturers  are 
concerned? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  And  if  the  sale  of  packages  were  limited  to  those 
inclosed  by  adhesive  revenue  stamps  it  would  compel  the  collector  to 
properly  enforce  the  law  to  protect  his  revenue,  would  it  not? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes;  it  would. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Unless  members  of  the  committee  have 
further  questions  to  ask  the  Secretary,  we  will  conclude  the  hearing— 
or  unless  you  have  some  further  statement  to  make,  Mr.  Secretary. 

Secretary  GAGE.  No,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  is  very  much  obliged  to 
you,  Mr.  Secretary. 

Secretary  GAGE.  I  thank  you  for  your  courtesy,  gentlemen. 

(Thereupon,  at  12.45  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  until 
Tuesday,  January  15,  1901,  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  15,  1901. 

The  committee  met  at  11  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Proctor  (chairman),  Foster,  Heitfeld,  Money,  War- 
ren, and  Bate. 

Also,  Hon.  William  W.  Grout,  Representative  from  Vermont;  Hon. 
J.  W.  Wadsworth,  Representative  from  New  York;  Mr.  Tillinghast, 
Mr.  Schell,  Mr.  Jelke,  Mr.  Miller,  and  others. 


568  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  If  the  committee  please,  I  want  to  read  two  telegrams 
which  I  received  last  night.  The  first  one  is: 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  January  14,  1901. 
CHARLES  E.  SCHELL  (try  Shoreham), 

Washington,  D.  C.  : 

Sentiment  of  labor  unions  on  Grout  bill  questioned  in  papers.  Get  hearing  for 
Cincinnati  representative. 

MICHAEL  KENNEDY, 
Secretary  of  Building  Trades  Union. 

With  the  permission  of  the  committee,  I  want  to  wire  back  to  him 
saying  that  the  hearings  are  closed,  and  if  he  wants  to  send  on  a  paper 
it  will  be  printed,  but  he  can  not  be  heard  personally. 

Senator  FOSTER.  I  think  that  had  better  be  done. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  have  also  a  telegram  from  Freidman  &  Co.,  of 
Chicago,  the  largest  handlers  of  neutral,  I  suppose,  in  the  country. 
They  are  also  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine.  Their  telegram  is  as 
follows : 

UNION  STOCK  YARDS,  ILLINOIS, 

January  14,  1901. 
C.  E.  SCHELL 

(Care  Senate  Committee  on  Agriculture), 

Senate  Chamber,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

We  have  exerted  every  effort  to  sell  uncolored  butteriue  in  the  States  where  color- 
ing is  prohibited,  and  find  it  absolutely  impossible.  * 

FRIEDMAN  &  Co. 

I  can  say,  further,  for  Friedman  &  Co.  that  I  am  attorney  for  them  in 
Ohio,  and  that  they  do  not  protect  their  customers  in  selling  oleomar- 
garine for  butter. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  J.  W.  WADSWORTH,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  simply  here,  in  the  absence  of 
Mr.  Lorimer  and  at  the  request  of  others,  to  give  you  what  may  be  called 
an  ocular  demonstration  of  the  practical  working  of  the  substitute  bill 
offered  by  the  minority  of  the  Committee  o.n  Agriculture  of  the  House. 
That  is  all;  I  do  not  care  to  go  into  any  other  points  unless  the  com- 
mittee wish  me  to. 

I  think  we  all  admit,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  present  law,  allowing 
oleomargarine  to  be  sold  in  large  bulk,  is  perhaps  an  incentive  to  fraud. 
The  fraud  is  not  committed  by  :he  manufacturers  at  all.  It  is  committed 
by  the  retail  butter  dealers.  The  retail  oleomargarine  dealer  can  not 
commit  fraud,  because  he  sells  it  with  his  sign  up,  open  and  above  board. 
It  is  committed  by  the  retail  butter  dealer,  and  he  is  tempted  to  do  it 
on  account  of  the  wholesale  price  of  oleomargarine  and  the  retail  price 
of  butter.  The  minority  of  the  Committeeon  Agriculture  of  the  House 
are  just  as  much  in  earnest  in  their  desire  to  reduce  this  fraud  to  a 
minimum  as  are  the  majority  of  that  committee.  There  is  simply  an 
honest  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  best  means  of  accomplishing  the 
best  results. 

After  we  had  examined  the  thing  carefully  and  found  that  the  proof 
was  that  oleomargarine  is  a  wholesome  and  nutritious  product,  and  is 
therefore  entitled  to  a  place  among  the  food  products  of  the  country, 
we  considered  one  or  two  measures.  We  thought  the  Grout  bill  was 
altogether  too  radical  and  too  drastic,  and  we  did  not  approve  of  it. 
Finally,  after  consultation  with  some  people  in  the  West,  Mr.  Wilson, 
of  the  Elgin  Dairy  Reporter,  I  think  it  is  called,  and  other  people,  we- 
made  up  our  minds  that  this  was  the  best  way  of  reducing  the  fraud  to» 


OLEOMARGARINE.  569 

a  minimum.  We  went  to  the  Internal  Eevenue  Commissioner  and 
requested  him  to  have  his  law  officer  amend  the  law  which  is  now  in 
existence,  the  law  of  1880,  so  as  to  cover  the  points  which  we  made — 
that  is,  to  tell  the  manufacturer  to  manufacture  and  sell  only  in  1-pouud 
or  2-pound  prints. 

Now,  I  have  here  before  you  these  samples,  because  I  think  these  will 
show  you  in  a  better  way  than  language  just  the  practical  working  of 
it.  That  [indicating]  is  a  2-pound  print.  We  first  compel  the  manu- 
facturer to  imprint  on  the  brick  or  roll,  or  whatever  you  call  it,  the  word 
"  Oleomargarine."  That  should  be  in  one  word.  The  factory  has  no 
stamp  fitted  on  that,  but  the  depth  of  those  letters  and  the  size  of  those 
letters,  if  you  will  read  the  substitute  bill,  are  to  be  determined  by  the 
Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue.  The  word  "  <  oleomargarine"  is  first 
stamped  on  that  brick ;  then  we  compel  the  manufacturer  to  wrap  it  up 
in  thin  paper  like  that,  on  which  is  to  be  printed  the  word  "Oleomarga- 
rine" and  the  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer.  There  is  the  first 
wrapping.  He  is  then  to  put  around  that  wrapping  this  second  wrap- 
ping of  paper,  or,  I  believe,  they  have  some  wrappings  of  thin  wood 
pulp  on  which  the  word  "  Oleomargarine"  is  again  printed,  and  around 
which  the  revenue  stamp — that  green  band  represents  the  revenue 
stamp — is  to  go.  It  is  to  go  completely  around,  just  like  a  hogshead  of 
tobacco.  When  he  sends  that  out  to  the  retail  dealer  or  the  wholesale 
dealer  the  law  provides  that  he  shall  pack  it  in  boxes  or  crates,  and  on 
the  crate  is  to  be  printed  the  word  "  Oleomargarine,"  the  number  of  his 
factory,  and  so  on.  The  size  of  the  print  and  all  that  is  left  under  the 
Commissioner  of  Internal  Eevenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury.  Now,  he  ships  it  out  that  way.  It  has  to  go  that  way 
to  the  dealer. 

We  put  in  a  proviso  in  the  bill  which  I  think  will  at  least  convince 
you  gentlemen  of  the  sincerity  of  our  pupose  to  stop  this  fraud.  We 
say: 

Retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine  shall  sell  only  the  original  package  to  which  the 
tax-paid  stamp  is  affixed,  and  shall  sell  only  from  the  original  package  or  boxes  in 
which  they  receive  the  pound  or  2-pound  prints,  bricks,  rolls,  or  lumps. 

Iii  other  words,  when  you  go  in  and  ask  for  a  pound  of  oleomargarine, 
he  has  that  box  in  evidence.  He  has  got  to  take  his  butter  right  out 
of  that,  with  this  stamp  on  the  outside,  with  the  stamp  around  it,  with 
the  printed  word  "Oleomargarine"  there,  and  printed  on  the  inside 
wrapper,  and  stamped  on  the  article  itself. 

Senator  WARREN.  If  the  dealer  is  dishonest  and  he  takes  this  and 
melts  it  up  or  pounds  it  up  into  another  mass,  and  then  does  it  up  into 
packages  and  sells  it  lor  butter,  you  provide  for  that,  I  suppose? 

Senator  FOSTER.  That  is  a  fraud  on  the  revenue,  of  course. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  Yes;  we  have  not  altered  the  license  fee  of  $600 
a  year  to  the  manufacturer,  $480  to  the  wholsesale  dealer,  $48  to  the 
retail  dealer,  or  the  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound.  That  all  remains.  All 
the  penalties  provided  by  the  act  of  1880  remain. 

Senator  WARREN.  Do  you  increase  the  penalties  at  all? 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  I  think  they  are  not  increased  over  those  fixed  in 
the  original  act.  Of  course,  it  is  possible  for  a  dishonest  man  to  take 
that  and  do  as  you  say.  Murder  is  committed  in  this  country.  Lar- 
ceny is  committed  in  this  country.  There  is  a  law  against  it,  but  the 
peculiar  part  of  it  is  that  the  fraud  is  not  committed  by  the  oleomar- 
garine dealer.  It  is  committed  by  the  butter  dealer.  Senator  Money, 
you  introduced  a  bill  which  you  call  the  Wadsworth  bill.  We  aban- 
doned that  as  not  going  far  enough.  I  want  to  say  that  very  frankly  to 


570  OLEOMARGARINE. 

you,  because  it  was  open  to  the  same  objections  exactly  as  the  original 
bill  that  allowed  this  thing  to  be  sold  in  too  large  quantities. 

Senator  MONEY.  Looking  at  it  from  another  point  ot  view,  we 
impose  upon  an  honest,  legitimate  industry  an  additional  tax  in  that 
wrapper.  I  do  not  know  how  much  that  will  cost  to  put  the  product 
up  in  a  changed  form.  Can  any  of  you  gentlemen  tell  me  that? 

Mr.  JELKE.  About  half  a  cent  a  pound. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  Therefore  the  tax  is  JJ  cents  a  pound. 

Senator  FOSTER.  I  do  not  suppose  those  wrappers  cost  a  fifth  of  a 
cent. 

Mr.  JELKE.  It  is  not  merely  the  expense  of  the  paper.  You  must 
include  also  the  printing  and  handling  of  the  paper. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  it  is  the  handling  and  packing.  Senator.  As  the 
law  is  now,  they  pack  it  into  a  big  tub.  They  shove  it  in  or  scoop  it  in, 
and  there  is  very  little  work  attached  to  it;  but  in  this  case  all  this 
wrapping  has  to  be  done.  I  should  think  it  would  be  worth  half  a  cent 
a  pound. 

Mr.  JELKE.  I  should  hardly  think  half  a  cent  a  pound  would  cover  it, 
for  this  reason:  We  now  pack  50  pounds  into  a  solid-packed  tub.  In 
printing  it  in  the  1  or  2  pound  blocks  there  is  a  certain  amount  of 
moisture  eliminated  from  it.  You  can  not  make  out  of  50  pounds  of 
solid-packed  oleomargarine  25  2  pound  prints  or  50  1-pound  prints. 
The  pressing  of  the  oleomargarine  into  that  form  eliminates  a  certain 
amount  of  moisture. 

Senator  FOSTER.  It  would  be  more  attractive  in  the  1  or  2-pound 
prints  than  it  would  the  other  way? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Yes;  very  much  more  attractive. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  It  is  generally  understood  in  the  factories  that 
prints  cost  half  a  cent  a  pound  more  than  the  tubs. 

Senator  FOSTER.  I  suppose  it  would  sell  for  perhaps  that  much  more 
in  that  shape  than  it  would  when  it  is  scooped  out  of  a  tub. 

Mr.  JELKE.  That  is  undoubtedly  so. 

Senator  FOSTER.  Is  that  all,  Mr.  Wadsworth? 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  That  is  all,  unless  the  committee  want  to  ask 
something.  I  simply  wanted  to  show  the  practical  operation  of  the  law. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  OF  HON.  W.  W.  GROUT. 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  would  like  to  submit  just  a  word,  if  the  committee  will 
hear  me,  illustrating  the  workings  of  this  substitute  bill. 

Senator  PROCTOR.  We  will  hear  you. 

Senator  MONEY.  Let  me  ask  a  question  before  you  begin.  Mr.  Wads- 
worth,  did  the  minority  of  the  House  committee  consider  the  expediency 
of  making  a  provision  in  regard  to  renovated  butter? 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  No,  sir;  that  was  not  brought  up  before  us  at  all. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  Mr.  Wadsworth  says  he 
regrets  the  absence  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  whose  scheme  I  understand  this  to  be, 
but  he  has  made  the  plan  quite  plain,  I  think,  as  to  the  purpose  it  would 
serve.  1  am  not  going  to  say  but  that  so  far  as  the  retail  dealer  is  con- 
cerned this  might  somewhat  limit  his  ability  to  work  this  off  as  butter, 
but  only  a  little,  a  very  little,  as  I  will  show  you  later.  I  presume  you 
have  been  told  in  this  investigation  that  a  large  part  of  oleomargarine 
is  disposed  of  to  purchasers  who  know  just  what  it  is.  I  have  not  been 
present  all  the  time  during  these  hearings,  but  I  saw  a  letter  to  that 
effect  written  by  an  oleomargarine  manufacturer  from  Ehode  Island 
to  the  chairman  of  this  committee,  to  the  effect  that  over  forty-odd  per 


OLEOMARGARINE.  571 

cent  of  the  oleomargarine  sold  tlie  person  receiving  it  knew  precisely 
what  it  was.  The  writer  referred  in  that  letter,  as  I  understood  it,  to 
the  hotel  keeper,  the  restaurant  keeper,  the  boarding-house  keeper,  the 
mine  owner,  the  lumberman,  and  that  class  of  men,  who  buy  in  bulk 
large  quantities  of  oleomargarine  from  the  manufacturer  direct,  some- 
times through  the  intervention  of  a  wholesale  dealer,  possibly,  and  that 
this  was  over  40  per  cent  of  the  entire  product. 

Now,  this  proposed  substitute  would  not  aifect  at  all  that  class  of 
trade.  It  does  not  reach  it  at  all,  because  while  they  are  obliged  to 
carry  it  into  their  camp — into  their  hotel,  if  you  please — in  this  pack- 
age, and  have  its  stamp  put  upon  it,  yet  it  is  not  sold,  and  so  the  pro- 
vision which  the  gentleman  read  in  closing  would  not  apply.  That 
provision  relates  to  the  retailer  alone. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  That  is  what  I  said. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Exactly;  that  is  the  provision  in  your  substitute.  It 
relates  alone  to  the  retailer.  It  does  not  touch  this  large  class  which 
handle  probably  two-thirds  of  all  the  oleomargarine  that  is  put  out.  It 
is  through  tbe  hotel  man,  1  repeat  again,  and  the  restaurant  keeper  and 
boarding  house  keeper  that  it  is  worked  off  upon  an  unsuspecting  public 
more  than  in  any  other  way. 

Senator  WARREN.  May  I  ask  you  a  question? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Certainly. 

Senator  WARREN.  You  do  not  propose  to  prevent  the  use  of  oleo- 
margarine in  the  boarding  house  and  in  the  hotel  in  cooking  and  in 
every  other  form  except  where  it  is  placed  before  the  boarder  to  be  put 
upon  his  bread  1? 

Mr.  GROUT.  We  do  not  propose  to  prevent  its  use  at  all  if  sold  in  a 
form  to  apprise  the  person  using  it  what  it  is. 

Senator  WARREN..  You  assume  they  will  go  on  using  it  for  that 
purpose  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  All  the  bill  before  you  aims  at  is  to  have  this  stuff  go 
on  the  market  and  be  consumed  for  just  what  it  is.  That  is  all  the  bill 
we  ask.  We  do  not  prohibit  the  use  of  it  for  cooking  or  anything  else. 

Senator  WARREN.  As  far  as  the  consumption  of  it  is  concerned,  the 
individual  sale  at  the  hotels,  if  a  hotel  desires  to  use  oleomargarine,  no 
matter  whether  it  is  colored  or  not,  the  guests  will  each  one  be  a  tank 
for  oleomargarine  to  some  extent,  through  the  cooking  and  otherwise. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  unquestionably;  but  the  color  of  butter  will  not 
show  as  in  the  chicken  hash  which  a  gentleman  ordered  in  my  presence 
in  an  eating  house  in  this  city  not  long  since  while  we  were  lunching 
together.  I  am  just  as  morally  certain  that  it  was  cooked  in  oleomar- 
garine as  I  could  be  of  anything,  and  he  became  satisfied  of  it,  too.  It 
will,  I  say,  not  carry  the  color  of  butter  if  you  will  pass  this  bill. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  How  did  you  satisfy  him? 

Mr.  GROUT.  By  comparing  it  with  a  specimen  on  the  table  which  we 
knew  was  oleomargarine,  in  color,  as  contradistinguished  from  a  lump 
of  butter  on  the  table  much  less  highly  colored. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  In  color  only? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  sir;  because  the  color  of  the  article  in  the  hash 
corresponded  exactly  with  the  oleo  before  us. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  That  comparison  was  only  by  color? 

Mr.  GROUT.  That  is  all.  I  will  not  say  that  it  was  absolutely  con- 
clusive in  that  case,  but  we  were  entirely  satisfied. 

Now,  not  to  be  diverted  from  the  point  I  was  making,  what  is  there 
to  prevent  the  hotel  man  from  cutting  this  up  in  little  stringlets  as 
wide  and  half  as  long  as  your  finger,  putting  it  upon  your  butter  plate, 


572  OLEOMARGARINK. 

and  selling  it  to  you  at  $5  a  day  or  $4  a  day,  or  whatever  you  may 
cbance  to  pay  for  board,  for  butter! 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  He  can  not  get  it  from  the  retail  dealer  except  as 
oleomargarine. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Ah,  but  he  does  not  take  it  from  the  retail  dealer.  He 
gets  it  straight  from  the  manufactory  or  through  the  wholesaler. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  Very  well;  he  can  not  get  it  from  the  manufac- 
tory, he  can  not  get  it  from  the  wholesale  dealer,  he  can  not  get  it 
from  the  retail  dealer,  except  in  that  form. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Precisely  so. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  Let  him  take  that  to  a  hotel,  and  he  immediately 
puts  himself  in  the  hands  of  his  help.  He  quarrels  with  a  waiter  or  a 
cook  and  dismisses  him,  and  the  man  turns  on  him  and  says,  "You 
have  been  selling  oleomargarine  to  your  customers  for  butter."  That 
is  the  objection. 

Mr.  GROUT.  You  will  not  find  a  first-class  hotel,  I  believe,  in  the  city 
of  Washington  but  you  will  know,  when  you  talk  this  matter  over  with 
them,  that  they  feed  oleomargarine  to  the  help,  and  that  will  account 
for  its  entrance  into  the  house;  and  once  in  the  house  its  uses  can  not 
be  so  easily  traced. 

Senator  WARREN.  If  it  is  your  idea  to  protect  the  hotel  guests  and 
the  restaurant  guests  from  oleomargarine,  has  it  suggested  itself  to  you 
in  what  way  you  will  protect  them  from  the  use  of  oleomargarine  that 
is  uncolored  I 

Mr.  GROUT.  Why,  the  color  tells  the  whole  story.  If  they  bring  an 
uncolored  article  on  the  table  the  guest  knows  it  is  not  butter.  He 
knows  it  is  hog  fat  or  cattle  fat. 

Senator .  WARREN.  A  great  many  men  do  not  eat  butter  at  all  on 
bread;  others  eat  little.  No  one  eats  much  in  that  way,  but  everyone 
eats  a  great  deal  that  is  used  in  cooking. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Very  well. 

Senator  WAIJREN.  So  that  ifc  seems  to  me  if  you  take  the  matter  of 
color  only,  and  only  prohibit  as  to  color,  you  are  not  reaching  the  con- 
sumer, and  he  is  the  one  we  are  trying  to  reach.  You  are  not  reaching 
the  matter  of  the  consumer  getting  oleomargarine  instead  of  fresh  but- 
ter, except  as  it  may  come  before  him,  put  upon  his  plate.  The  great 
mass  of  butter  that  is  used  for  cooking,  it  seems  to  me,  is  not  reached 
by  this  bill. 

Mr.  GROUT.  It  would  not  reach  the  butter  that  goes  into  pie  crust 
or  into  shortening  cake,  but  fat  is  frequently,  almost  always,  used  for 
that  instead  of  butter,  and  the  hotel  man  uses  fat  almost  exclusively  for 
that  purpose.  I  am  not  saying  that  it  would  absolutely  exclude  the 
use  of  it  for  cooking  purposes.  There  is  no  pretense  that  it  would,  and 
yet  there  are  many  kinds  of  cooking  in  which  it  betrays  its  color,  as  it 
did  in  the  chicken  hash  the  other  day,  that  I  referred  to.  If  it  were 
seasoned  or  made  suitable  for  some  people  to  eat  with  the  shortening, 
and  that  were  an  uncolored  article,  it  would  falsely  pretend  to  be  but- 
ter; and  the  same  with  whatever  may  be  put  on  your  toast  in  the  name 
of  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  Is  not  the  butter  and  oleomargarine  color  the  same 
thing  f 

Mr.  GROUT.  How  is  that,  sir  ? 

Senator  MONEY.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  butter  and  the  oleomargarine 
that  is  offered  are  colored  the  same? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  sir;  sometimes  butter  is  colored.  There  is  no 
debate  about  that. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  573 

Senator  MONEY.  How  can  we  distinguish  them? 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  did  not  intend  to  go  into  that,  and  I  do  not  care  to 
now.  If  the  committee  want  me  to  do  so,  however,  I  am  willing  to 
stand  here  and  have  a  conversation,  and  a  long  one,  on  that  subject  of 
coloring  butter.  I  expressed  myself  fully  in  my  opening  statement  on 
that  subject  and  I  do  not  think  I  need  repeat  it,  but  still  if  you  desire 
I  will  gladly  discuss  it  with  you. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  have  no  desire  to  hear  anything  further  about  it, 
except  you  made  the  statement,  and  it  was  in  answer  to  that  statement, 
that  you  detected  oleomargarine  by  its  color  in  the  hash,  that  I  asked 
you  the  question. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Precisely. 

Senator  MONEY.  Then  I  wanted  to  ask  you  if  the  same  color  did  not 
enter  into  the  butter  that  enters  into  the  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  sir;  it  does.  It  belongs  to  butter.  Yellow  is  the 
natural  color  of  butter  and  always  has  been,  and  if  you  allow  them  to 
color  oleo  just  like  butter,  that  enables  them  to  make  you  believe  it  is 
butter  whether  you  spread  it  on  your  bread  or  see  it  in  chicken  hash. 

Senator  MONEY.  It  has  been  testified  here  that  the  natural  color  of 
butter  is  white. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Can  that  be  possible?  Excuse  me,  but  I  should  not 
suppose  anyone  would  make  that  claim.  I  had  always  understood  that 
butter  is  always  yellow.  The  cow  makes  it  yellow. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  What  is  the  color  of  the  butter  that  Delmonico 
uses  in  New  York? 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  do  not  think  Delmonico  uses  white  butter. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  And  it  is  unsalted? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  but  not  white  butter.  He  uses  butter,  very  likely, 
without  any  coloring  matter,  and  my  own  taste  approves  that.  Tastes 
vary  as  to  degrees  of  the  yellowness  for  butter,  or  which  should  belong 
to  butter,  and  of  course  it  is  colored  to  meet  those  varying  tastes;  but 
it  is  all  the  time  a  butter  color.  It  is  only  a  little  more  colored  or  a 
little  less.  It  is  always  in  some  degree  yellow.  Nobody  ever  saw  but- 
ter but  what  it  was  in  some  degree  yellow. 

Senator  WARREN.  You  speak  of  a  case  of  chicken  hash.  You  would 
naturally  be  an  expert,  and  especially  so  at  this  time  when  your  mind 
is  turned  toward  this.  Do  you  think  the  presence  of  oleomargarine  in 
that  chicken  hash  you  speak  of  would  easily  be  detected  by  an  ordinary 
boarder? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Not  without  the  clue  which  we  had  in  the  difference  of 
color  between  the  butter  and  the  oleo,  which  we  had  before  us,  both  of 
which  were  in  the  house.  Of  course  chicken  hash  would  be  more 
palatable  to  the  man  who  ordered  it  if  it  disclosed  the  use  of  butter  in 
serving  it  up  than  it  would  if  it  disclosed  a  white  grease  simply  like 
lard  or  oleo  without  color.  And  so,  as  in  this  case,  oleomargarine  is 
put  into  cooking  where  it  will  show  to  give  the  guest  the  impression 
that  they  have  made  a  free  use  of  butter  in  serving  chicken  hash  or 
whatever,  and  it  goes  off  at  the  rate  of  $5  a  day,  or  whatever  price  may 
be  paid. 

Senator  WARREN.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  oleomargarine  in  the 
chicken  hash  would  be  less  discoverable  if  it  was  white  than  if  it  was 
colored.  I  do  not  want  to  take  from  your  argument,  but  what  I  am 
getting  at  is  the  purpose  of  this  bill.  I  want  to  get  at  whether  the 
purpose  is  to  protect  the  butter  men,  whether  it  is  to  protect  the  board- 
ing-house men,  and  the  percentage  of  protection ;  whether  it  is  one-half 
of  the  consumers  and  one  half  of  the  buttermen,  or  two-thirds  one 


574  OLEOMARGARINE. 

way  and  one-third  the  other  way.  That  is  why  I  arn  asking  these 
questions. 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  can  not  divide  the  protection  arithmetically.  It  would 
be  impossible  to  do  so;  but  1  may  say  in  brief 

Senator  FOSTER.  To  protect  tin  public. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Precisely  so,  Mr.  Senator.  It  is  for  the  protection  of 
the  public.  It  is  for  the  protection,  also,  of  an  honest  industry  against 
a  fraudulent  product.  It  is  for  the  protection  of  everybody  who  uses 
butter  in  any  form,  and  for  the  protection  of  the  hard-working  men 
and  women  who  produce  it  at  small  profit. 

Mr.  WADS  WORTH.  Who  says  oleomargarine  is  a  fraudulent  product1? 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  do;  it  is  sold  as  butter. 

Senator  WARREN.  You  have  given  it  a  great  deal  of  attention.  The 
bill  does  not  go  far  enough,  it  seems  to  me,  if  this  is  to  protect  the 
public.  If  this  is  a  fraudulent  product,  and  if  three-fourths,  perhaps, 
of  the  oleomargarine  that  is  used  is  used  in  cooking,  and  a  man  must 
take  it  anyway,  whether  he  will  or  not,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  we  are 
protecting  the  public  in  this  matter.  That  is  what  I  want  to  get  at. 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  am  glad  you  have  asked  how  it  protects.  It  protects 
the  public  in  this  way,  by  stripping  from  oleomargarine  the  dress  of 
butter,  so  that  it  can  not  longer  impose  itself  on  the  public  as  butter. 
Put  this  10-cent  tax  on  the  colored  article  and  it  will  become  unprofit- 
able to  color  it.  Do  this  and  it  will  no  longer  be  sold  as  butter,  but 
will  go  upon  the  market  uncolored,  so  that  it  shall  deceive  nobody. 

Senator  WARREN.  But  it  will  be  used  all  the  more  for  cooking  pur- 
poses. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Perhaps  so,  where  it  can  be  concealed ;  but  where  it  can 
not  be  concealed  they  will  have  to  use  butter  instead  of  oleomargarine. 
If  you  call  for  buttered  toast,  they  will  not  bring  you  toast  with  hogs' 
fat  upon  it.  They  will  bring  toast  with  genuine  butter  upon  it,  and 
the  color  tells  you  what  it  is.  This  will  be  accomplished  by  reducing 
the  total  profits  on  the  oleomargarine  business  from  $13,000,000  to 
$3,000,000  annually.  Yes,  gentlemen,  you  may  laugh,  but  between  the 
consumer  of  oleomargarine  and  the  cost  of  the  product  there  was  last 
year  from  $12,000,000  to  $15,000,000  profit,  and  there  is  no  escape  from 
the  fact.  I  think  it  perfectly  safe  to  call  it  $13,000,000. 

Mr.  TILLINGKEAST.  There  is  no  foundation  for  the  statement. 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  will  make  it  clear  right  here  in  just  a  moment.  This 
article  costs  7  cents  a  pound  to  manufacture. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  How  do  you  know  that  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  On  the  statement  of  a  prospectus  issued  by  the  builders 
of  a  new  oleo  factory  in  this  city  ;  on  the  statement  also  of  not  Philip 
D.  Armour  himself,  but  a  niaii  representing  his  concern,  some  six  or 
eight  years  ago,  that  it  did  not  exceed  5  cents  a  pound — materials  are 
more  expensive  now — in  a  local  investigation  up  in  the  State  of  New 
York  by  the  New  York  State  Dairy  Union.  In  New  York  they  enforce 
their  color  law  more  thoroughly  and  completely  than  in  any  other 
State,  but  still  there  are  infractions  of  the  law  there.  On  the  strength 
of  those  statements,  the  last  of  which  was  made  under  oath,  I  say  that 
it  does  not  cost  over  7  cents  a  pound  now  to  manufacture  it,  and  it  is 
worked  off  on  the  public,  through  the  hotel  men,  the  restaurant  keep- 
ers, the  boarding-house  keepers,  and  retailers  for  the  price  of  butter, 
anywhere  from  18  to  30  cents  a  pound.  We  may  call  it  on  an  average 
22  cents  a  pound,  and  that  is  perfectly  within  bounds.  When  I  pay  $5 
a  day  or  $4  a  day  at  a  hotel  where  oleo  is  used,  they  are  selling  the 
stuff  to  me  at  the  price  of  butter,  ana  the  great  bulk  of  it  is  worked  off 


OLEOMARGARINE.  575 

in  that  intangible,  uu traceable  way.  Take  the  difference  between  7 
cents  and  22  cents  and  you  have  15  cents.  There  were  104,000,000 
pounds  of  oleomargarine  manufactured  and  stamped  last  year. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  Where  is  your  tax  license  fee  and  all  that? 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  thank  the  gentleman  for  the  reminder.  Add  the  tax 
to  the  cost  of  the  product  and  it  makes  it  9  cents.  That  will  leave  a 
margin  of  13  cents  profit  on  every  pound  with  the  selling  price  at  22 
cents,  which  is  a  low  figure.  There  were  104,000,000  pounds  manufac- 
tured and  stamped  last  year  and  two  or  three  million  pounds  more  not 
stamped.  Now,  there  is  your  $13,520,000  profit  on  the  product  of  last 
year  between  the  cost  of  production  and  the  price  paid  by  the  man  who 
consumes  it.  There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion,  my  friends. 

Now,  if  you  take  what  they  claim  to  be  true,  that,  as  one  manufac- 
turer puts  it,  the  great  middle  class  wants  oleomargarine,  prefer  it  to 
butter,  and  take  what  the  oleo  folks  say  about  the  dirt  and  filth  and 
all  that  sort  of  thing  in  butter,  which  they  talk  about  to  help  make 
oleomargarine  palatable^-I  say  if  it  be  true  that  anyone  wants  oleo- 
margarine at  butter  prices  they  can  manufacture  oleomargarine  and 
pay  the  10  cents  tax  and  still  not  have  it  cost  more  than  it  is  costing 
to-day.  But  I  do  not  believe  it  to  be  true.  I  believe  it  is  not  true  that 
people  want  oleomargarine  in  preference  to  butter  at  the  price  of 
butter,  and  that  when  you  will  institute  measures  which  will  insure 
the  article  going  upon  the  market  for  exactly  what  it  is,  all  will  prefer 
butter,  excepting  those,  perhaps,  who  want  a  very  cheap  article.  And 
under  the  last  clause  in  the  last  section  of  the  bill,  which  proposes  to 
reduce  the  tax  on  uncolored  oleomargarine  to  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per 
pound,  they  can  have  it  at  less  than  one-half  what  it  costs  them  now. 

I  am  not  going  to  claim  here  now  that  oleomargarine  is  unwholesome 
or  unnutritious.  There  is  no  question,  however,  that  it  is  more  difficult 
of  digestion  than  butter,  because  butter  melts  at  1)2°  and  oleomargarine 
does  not  melt  short  of  from  101°  to  107°.  That  is  the  fact  about  it, 
correctly  expressed.  I  refer  you  to  the  testimony  which  was  taken 
before  the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture,  in  which  that  fact  is  dis- 
tinctly stated  by  Governor  Hoard;  and  it  is  not  only  chemically  but 
absolutely  true  it  is  because  of  the  stearin  or  paraffin  that  it  carries. 
Paraffin,  however,  has  become  so  expensive  that  they  do  not  use  it  now. 
Stearin  has  been  used  within  the  last  few  years  in  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Not  to  any  extent. 

Mr.  GROUT.  The  New  York  agriculture  department  found  10  per 
cent  of  paraffin  in  6  60-pound  tubs;  but  leaving  that  out,  it  is  not 
used  now  because  of  its  great  cost.  Stearin  is  used,  and  that  is  what 
you  make  tallow  candles  out  of. 

Mr.  TiLLiNGrHAST.  Paraffin  was  never  used  by  any  manufacturers 
in  this  country  since  oleomargarine  was  made,  and  if  it  was  found  in 
oleomaragine  it  was  put  there  by  an  enemy  to  the  oleomargarine 
industry. 

Mr.  GROUT.  It  was  found  in  the  course  of  some  experiments  made 
by  the  assistant  secretary  of  agriculture,  whatever  his  name  may  be— 
Oracke,  I  think.  The  report  of  the  secretary  of  agriculture  for  New 
York  of  that  year  tells  you  all  about  it.  It  was  some  oleomargarine 
they  captured  that  was  being  sold  for  butter,  'and  on  inspection  they 
found  this  paraffin. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  It  seems  to  me  you  ought  not  brand  a  trade  on 
account  of  the  black  sheep  in  it.  Will  you  condemn  the  butter  business 
on  account  of  the  black  sheep  in  it?  I  suppose  there  are  some  who 
palm  off  process  butter  for  creamery  butter. 


576  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  expect  the  gentleman  knows  better  about  black  sheep 
than  I  do.  All  I  know  is  that  in  the  oleo  business  they  are  all  black 
sheep.  I  did  not  care,  however,  to  be  drawn  into  a  general  discussion 
of  this  whole  oleo  question.  I  only  sought  to  reply  to  the  particular 
points  raised  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York  in  connection  with  this 
substitute  bill.  But  if  I  were  to  say  what  I  thought  about  it,  I  would 
not  exculpate,  as  the  gentleman  seems  swift  to  do,  the  oleomargarine 
manufacturers  from  complicity  in  this  fraud.  They  are  as  deeply 
steeped  in  it  as  the  retailer  is.  You  take  up  the  testimony  which  was 
taken  before  the  Committee  on  Agriculture  in  the  House  and  you  will 
find  that  they  say  to  the  retail  trade  in  their  printed  circulars,  "Sell 
our  goods  and  we  will  stand  between  you  and  all  expenses,  fines, 
costs,  and  the  like."  More  than  one  concern  issued  such  a  circular  in 
Chicago.  Now,  if  that  does  not  mean  that  they  are  ready  to  back  the 
retailer  in  practicing  this  fraud,  I  would  like  to  know  what  it  does 
mean. 

But,  as  I  say,  I  did  not  intend  to  go  into  that,  gentlemen;  I  have 
been  drawn  into  it,  as  you  will  witness.  What  I  wanted  to  refer  to  was 
this  system  of  stamping  this  article  will  not  prevent  disposition  of  oleo- 
margarine through  the  mediumship  which  the  bulk  of  it  is  now  worked 
off  upon  an  unsuspecting  public,  namely,  the  hotels,  restaurants,  and 
boarding  houses,  from  cutting  this  up  into  strips  and  serving  it  on  the 
table,  and  in  cooking  also,  making  the  guest  believe  that  he  is  eating 
a  well-seasoned  dish,  or  a  dish  well  seasoned  with  butter  instead  of  with 
ordinary  grease.  That  is  the  only  point  I  wished  to  answer  in  the 
gentleman's  statement,  and  to  show  that  while  it  may  touch,  perhaps, 
the  retail  trade  and  contravene  in  some  slight  degree  the  fraud  prac- 
ticed by  them.  It  would  not  be  effectual  with  them,  for  what  is  there 
to  prevent  the  retailer  from  packing  these  2-pound  lumps  into  a  butter 
firkin  and  selling  it  for  butter? 

Senator  MONEY.  You  said  the  only  way  to  discover  whether  it  was 
oleomargarine  or  butter  was  by  the  color.  Do  you  mean  to  say  to  the 
committee,  Mr.  Grout,  that  a  consumer  of  oleomargarine  or  butter  at 
a  table  can  not  discover  it  in  any  other  way  than  by  the  color? 

Mr.  GROUT.  The  color  would  not  ordinarily  help.  It  helped  us  in 
the  last  case  I  cited,  because  its  color  corresponded  with  the  oleo  before 
us  and  did  not  correspond  with  the  butter.  The  oleo  was  highly  colored, 
and  the  butter  not  so  highly.  Oleomargarine  can  be  detected  only  by 
very  careful  tasting.  If  one  takes  it  with  his  food  he  will  not  discover 
whether  it  is  oleomargarine  or  butter. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  mean  if  he  takes  butter  on  his  plate.  You  do  not 
think  the  ordinary  consumer  can  distinguish? 

Mr.  GROUT.  No,  sir;  it  would  pass  as  butter  unless  you  taste  very 
carefully  and  wait  for  the  after  effect  in  the  mouth.  There  is  only  a 
very  slight  flavor  of  butter  in  oleo,  and  sometimes  in  the  poorer 
grades  none  at  all,  and  that  is  what  betrays  its  character. 

Senator  MONEY.  If  it  is  wholesome  and  nutritious  and  nobody  can 
tell  it  from  butter,  what  is  the  difference? 

Mr.  GROUT.  The  difference  is  that  it  is  not  butter ;  the  difference  is 
that  it  is  foisted  upon  the  people  for  that  which  it  is  not,  at  an  enor- 
mous profit,  and  as  a  counterfeit.  The  same  difference  that  there  is 
between  good  money  and  counterfeit  money — butter  is  the  genuine 
article,  oleomargarine  is  the  counterfeit. 

Senator  MONEY.  We  have  had  circulars  of  the  retail  dealers  in  which 
they  offer  three  grades  of  oleomargarine,  for  11,  12,  and  13  cents  a 
pound,  and  butter  from  22  cents  up. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  577 

Mr.  OK  OUT.  Yes. 

Senator  MON  w  Y.  Now  about  tbe  digestibility.  I  know  nothing  about 
oleomargarine,  because  I  may  have  eaten  it  and  I  may  not;  but  I  have 
a  member  of  my  family  who  can  not  digest  butter  at  all,  and  conse- 
quently when  he  is  at  home  he  does  not  eat  butter.  We  can  not  get 
oleomargarine  in  my  State.  I  do  not  suppose  there  is  a  pound  of  it 
sold  in  the  State;  but  when  he  comes  to  Washington  he  hunts  up 
oleomargarine  because  he  can  eat  it  and  can  digest  it.  It  may  be  an 
idiosyncrasy  of  his  stomach,  but  there  must  be  some  digestibility 
about  it. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Under  this  bill  he  could  get  it  for  one-half  what  he  gets 
it  for  now,  lacking  the  color  which  the  article  now  has,  and  color  only 
feeds  the  eye,  anyway. 

Senator  WARREN.  You  were  speaking  about  protecting  the  consumer. 
You  have,  no  doubt,  given  this  so-called  substitute  bill  attention.  Is 
there  anything  in  that  which  makes  the  hotel  keeper  liable  for  serving 
it  as  butter? 

Mr.  GROUT.  That  would  be  a  matter  of  local  regulation.  We  do  not 
attempt  to  enter  into  that  here;  we  hardly  could  do  so  for  want  of  juris- 
diction. That  is  a  matter  for  police  regulation  in  the  States.  The  first 
section  of  the  bill  gives  those  laws  supreme  control,  whatever  they  may 
be,  when  once  enacted. 

Senator  WARREN.  If  I  understand  you,  and  I  am  seeking  light,  your 
criticism  of  this  proposed  substitute  bill  is  that,  while  it  would  cover 
the  family  purchaser  who  goes  to  a  grocer  and  buys  a  pound  or  two 
pounds,  it  would  not  cover  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  growing  greater 
all  the  time,  who  eat  at  restaurants  and  hotels.  It  would  still  be  in  the 
power  of  the  restaurant  keeper  and  hotel  keeper  to  deceive  his  guests. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes. 

Senator  WARREN.  And  there  is  no  way  to  reach  him  for  imposing 
upon  his  customers. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Excepting  the  law  which  we  prescribe  in  this  bill.  We 
make  it  unprofitable  for  him  to  buy  oleomargarine  instead  of  butter. 
He  now  pays  for  it,  say,  12  cents  per  pound.  This  10-cent  tax  instead 
of  2  would  make  it  cost  him  at  least  20  cents  per  pound,  and  he  would 
buy  butter.  The  bill  deals  with  the  subject  fundamentally. 

Senator  WARREN.  If  I  understand  you  in  doing  the  best  you  can  in 
this  matter,  you  seek  to  protect  the  consumer  at  the  hotel  and  the  res- 
taurant so  far  as  the  butter  that  is  brought  to  him  and  placed  in  front 
of  him  is  concerned.  All  others  you  allow  could  be  protected  with 
other  legislation.  You  do  not  attempt  to  reach  the  use  of  oleomargarine 
for  cooking,  etc.  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  That  would  be  beyond  our  jurisdiction.  That  is  a  mat- 
ter of  State  regulation.  The  first  section  of  this  bill  gives  the  States 
supreme  authority.  The  States  may  go  on  and  institute  just  such 
methods  in  the  exercise  of  their  police  power  as  they  see  fit  to  rectify 
all  those  things,  and  undoubtedly  they  will  do  so. 

Senator  WARREN.  But  your  direct  purpose  is  to  feel  sure  that  you 
can  reach  that  much  of  it? 

Mr.  GROUT.  We  reach  the  whole  of  it,  sir.  We  claim  we  reach  the 
whole  business,  because  this  bill  will  take  away  all  temptation  to  sell 
it  for  butter  when  we  take  away  the  profits  by  putting  such  a  tax  upon 
it  as  makes  it  unprofitable  to  manufacture  colored  oleomargarine  and 
sell  it  for  butter.  Then  we  take  away  the  dress  of  butter  and  correct 
the  evil.  It  may  fall  short  of  it,  but  we  believe  it  will  work  the  result 
desired. 

*S.  Rep.  2043 37 


578  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  WARREN.  It  makes  no  difference  with  toe  cooking  part,  of 
course  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  No;  we  can  not  in  this  legislation  enter  into  the  minu- 
tiae, as  I  say,  of  local  regulations.  It  would  be  beyond  oar  jurisdiction. 

Senator  MONEY.  Then  the  raising  of  the  tax  is  of  no  particular 
importance  in  protecting  the  consumer  if  it  is  the  color  that  is  the 
most  important? 

Mr.  GROUT.  It  makes  unprofitable  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine, 
and  when  it  is  not  colored  it  will  have  to  go  for  what  it  is.  It  matters 
but  little  whether  they  do  their  shortening  or  cooking  with  oleomarga- 
rine or  hogs'  fat  or  beef  tallow.  There  is  mighty  little  difference 
between  them.  It  is  all  the  same;  but  when  they  undertake  to  make 
the  public  think  they  have  shortened  up  with  butter,  the  color  is  want- 
ing, and  they  can  not  carry  the  deceit  to  that  extent.  To  that  extent 
it  will  prevent  its  use  in  cooking. 

Senator  WARREN.  Gould  they  not  add  a  little  of  the  coloring  matter 
in  the  cooking  and  thereby  deceive  the  guests? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Possibly  they  could  color  it  so  that  they  could  spread 
your  toast  with  it  and  make  you  think  it  was  butter.  Possibly  they 
might  recook  and  color  it  in  quantities,  but  no  one  has  suggested  that 
that  is  practicable.  But  everyone  can  see  that  the  provisions  of  this 
substitute  bill  can  be  evaded  by  the  retailer,  to  a  certain  extent,  as 
well  as  the  hotel,  restaurant,  and  boarding-house  keeper.  All  the 
retailer  would  have  to  do  would  be  buy,  say,  200  pounds  of  oleo,  stamped 
like  these  specimens  and  delivered  to  him  in  a  box  like  this,  take  off 
the  wrappers,  and  then,  with  an  ordinary  butter  cutter,  mold,  or  mallet, 
pound  these  2-pound  lumps  into  butter  firkins  and  then  sell  it  out  of 
the  firkins  for  butter.  How  easy;  and  after  he  had  used  the  box  and 
wrappers  to  kindle  the  fire,  no  vestige  of  oleo  would  be  left  on  his  prem- 
ises. All  this  is  very  easy  to  do  under  Mr.  Wadsworth's  substitute.  But 
if  you  take  away  the  color,  as  this  10-cent  tax  will  do,  the  game  is  up. 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  object  of  your  bill,  I  understand,  is  to  prevent  the 
retail  dealer 

Mr.  GROUT.  It  is  to  prevent  fraud  along  the  whole  line. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Will  you  permit  me  to  ask  a  question? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  JELKE.  It  is  to  prevent  a  fraud  in  the  sale  by  the  retail  dealer 
and  to  protect  the  consumer  against  this  fraudulent  sale? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Is  there  any  provision  in  the  bill  preventing  the  purchase, 
by  the  retailer,  of  uncolored  oleomargarine  on  which  there  is  but  a  quar- 
ter of  a  cent  per  pound  tax 

Mr.  GROUT.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  JELKE.  And  then  coloring  the  oleomargarine  himself  and  making 
9j  cents  per  pound  additional  profit? 

Mr.  GROUT.  But  he  would  have  to  work  it  all  over  and  melt  it  in 
order  to  work  in  his  color.  If  he  colors  the  uucolored  article,  which  I 
am  told  is  highly  impracticable,  he  would  have  to  have  a  caldron,  kettle, 
or  something  of  that  kind  to  make  that  transformation,  and  it  cer- 
tainly could  be  traced ;  but  see  how  easily  he  could  take  that  stuff  and 
pound  it  into  a  50  pound  butter  tub  and  sell  it  for  butter.  Who  can 
trace  him?  Who  can  follow  him?  He  burns  up  this  wooden  box  and 
wrapper  in  which  it  came  and  there  is  no  way  to  trace  it. 

Mr.  JELKE.  For  your  own  information,  Mr.  Grout,  I  would  like  to  say 
that  if  this  roll  of  oleomargarine  were  absolutely  white,  without  spoil 


OLEOMARGARINE.  579 

ing  the  brick,  I  could,  without  melting  it,  put  a  few  drops  of  color  in  it 
right  here  in  this  room  and  produce  just  that  same  thing  there. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Diffusing  the  color  throughout  the  whole  mass? 

Mr.  JELKE.  Yes;  by  taking  a  ladle  and  working  it. 

Mr.  GROUT.  Well,  the  ways  of  this  craft,  gentlemen,  are  past  find- 
ing out. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Speaking  of  the  use  of  butterine  by  hotels,  is  it  not  a 
fact  tbat  the  contention  of  your  side  has  been  right  along  that  there 
was  fraud  by  the  retail  dealers  ? 

Mr.  GROUT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MILLER.  And  is  it  not  a  fact  that  you  claim  all  the  fraud  has 
been  practiced  by  the  retail  dealers?  You  say  two-thirds  of  the  but- 
terine sold  goes  to  hotels. 

Mr.  GROUT.  I  say  that  I  am  not  sure  it  is  two-thirds,  but  it  is  a  very 
large  proportion.  1  did  not  say  it  went  into  the  hotels,  but  the  claim 
was  that  a  large  portion  of  it  went  to  purchasers  who  knew  just  what 
it  was.  The  hotel  man  knows  just  what  it  is.  The  restaurant  man 
knows  just  what  it  is.  The  lumberman  and  the  mine  man  know  just 
what  it  is,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Mr.  Chairman,  just  one  suggestion  on  the  police 
regulations  of  the  States.  Most  all  of  these  States  which  have  oleo- 
margarine legislation  and  the  anticolor  law  have  also  the  police  regu- 
lation that  boarding-house  keepers,  hotel  keepers,  and  restaurant 
keepers  shall  give  notice  to  the  guests  of  those  places  that  they  are 
using  oleomargarine,  if  they  are  using  it,  under  severe  penalties  if  they 
do  not  do  that.  That  is  one  of  the  easiest  regulations  to  maintain  in 
the  States,  as  the  dairy  bureaus  have  often  told  me,  because  any  of 
their  men  may  go  to  any  of  those  places  where  it  is  suspected  that 
oleomargarine  is  used  and  call  for  a  dinner,  and  after  his  oleomargarine 
is  served  to  him,  he  takes  a  sample  out  and  analyzes  it,  and  he  has  the 
man  caught,  unless  he  has  been  personally  notified  to  that  effect.  So 
that  any  fraud  that  exists,  or  might  exist,  on  the  part  of  the  hotel  pro- 
prietor or  restaurant  keeper  or  boarding-house  keeper  can  be,  and  is, 
provided  for,  and  this  bill  would  be  of  no  assistance  to  the  States  in 
enforcing  that  legislation.  They  have  ample  protection  in  that  line. 

Now,  gentlemen,  just  one  word  in  reply  to  Mr.  Grout's  statement. 
He  says  the  larger  part  of  this  oleomargarine  is  worked  off  in  hotels, 
etc.  His  statement  with  reference  to  that  has  no  better  foundation 
than  the  statement  with  reference  to  some  other  things.  His  means  of 
information  are  not  any  better  than  mine,  and  I  do  not  believe  they 
are  as  good,  because  he  has  not  given  as  much  attention  to  it  as  I  have. 
The  greater  part  of  the  oleomargarine  that  is  sold  in  this  country  is  sold 
to  men  who  use  it  in  their  families,  and  who  buy  it  for  what  it  is;  and 
fraud  does  not  exist  to  the  extent  he  claims  it  exists  with  reference  to 
the  hotel  keepers,  restaurant  keepers,  and  boarding-house  keepers,  and 
if  it  did,  then  the  police  regulations  of  the  States  concerning  such  places 
are  amply  sufficient  to  protect  that  matter. 

Senator  FOSTER.  You  say  they  buy  it  because  they  want  it? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  FOSTER.  What  effect  would  it  have  if  it  was  uncolored? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  They  would  not  have  it  at  all. 

Senator  FOSTER.  That  is  the  same  old  question. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  The  same  old  question  that  has  been  discussed  so 
often. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  Just  one  question.  I  presented  here  a  list  of  1,083  con- 
sumers who  buy  direct  from  one  of  my  factories.  We  also— all  of  us— 


580  OLEOMARGARINE. 

have  an  export  trade.  In  32  different  States,  including  Ohio,  where 
two  of  my  factories  are  located,  there  is  a  law  absolutely  prohibiting 
the  manufacture  or  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine.  I  would  like  to 
know  how,  under  this  bill,  my  people  can  manufacture,  either  on  the 
order  of  these  consumers  or  for  the  export  trade,  colored  oleomargarine 
at  all,  since  every  time  they  do  it  they  are  pleading  guilty  to  a  viola- 
tion of  the  State  statute. 

Mr.  GROUT.  That  is  a  question  that  enters  into  the  secrets  of  the 
oleo  business,  and  I  do  not  think  anybody  could  answer  it.  I  must  con- 
fess I  do  not  see  myself  how  there  is  any  plea  of  guilty  to  a  charge  in 
such  a  case  as  stated  by  him. 

The  committee  (at  11  o'clock  and  45  minutes)  adjourned,  subject  to 
calL 


HEARINGS 


BEFORE    THE 


COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE, 


HOUSE     OF     REPRESENTATIVES. 


631 


[NOTE.— (*)  pages  at  bottom  refer  to  pages  in  original  House  hearings, 
and  are  the  pages  meant  when  reference  is  made  to  House  hearings  in 
Senate  hearing  and  in  review  by  Mr.  Schell.] 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


HOUSE  OF  BEPRESENTATIVES, 
COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE, 
Washington,  D.  0.,  March  7, 1900. 

ARGUMENT  OF  W.  D.  HOARD. 

Whom  do  we  represent?  The  united  dairy  sentiment  of  the  nation. 
That  means  over  5,000,000  farmers,  and  an  annual  cash  value  in  their 
product  of  over  $600,000,000.  A  vast  army  of  consumers  of  dairy  prod- 
ucts, who  are  constantly  duped  and  swindled  by  a  counterfeit  substitute 
for  butter.  The  consumer  is  defrauded  of  his  money  and  the  dairy 
farmer  of  his  rightful  market,  the  first  being  compelled  to  pay  a  butter 
price  for  that  which  is  not  butter. 

The  consumers  and  producers  of  butter  ask  Congress  to  enact  into 
law  House  bill  3717,  which  provides  by  the  first  section  that  all  coun- 
terfeit substitutes  for  butter,  when  taken  into  any  State  or  Territory, 
shall  be  subject  to  the  laws  of  that  State  or  Territory  concerning  such 
counterfeit,  the  same  as  the  Wilson  law  in  regard  to  liquors,  enacted, 
I  think,  in  1891.  It  was  deemed  for  the  public  welfare  to  enact  that 
law.  We  claim  it  is  for  the  public  welfare  to  place  oleomargarine 
under  the  operation  of  a  similar  law. 

Already  thirty-two  States  have  laws  on  their  statute  books  forbid- 
ding the  manufacture  and  sale  of  fat  mixtures  when  colored  and  made 
in  the  semblance  of  butter. 

The  Oleomargarine  combine  consists  of  less  than  twenty  manufactur- 
ers, who  have  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  break  down  these  State  laws, 
and,  by  bribing  merchants,  by  deception  of  all  kinds,  by  subsidizing  city 
newspapers,  by  employing  leading  politicians,  to  so  neutralize  the  effect 
and  administration  ot  those  laws  that  they  may  force  their  counterfeit 
upon  the  public.  These  manufacturers  are  assuming  to  override  all  law. 
They  stand  behind  all  infractions  of  State  and  national  laws,  and  fur- 
nish money  for  the  defense  of  their  agents  when  arrested. 

On  one  side  stands  one  of  the  greatest  of  our  agricultural  interests, 
together  with  the  millions  of  consumers  who  are  tired  of  being  swindled. 

On  the  other  side  stands  the  oleomargarine  trust,  engaged  in  manu- 
facturing a  counterfeit,  depending  on  lawbreaking,  falsehood,  and 
deception  for  its  success,  backed  up  with  millions  of  capital. 

The  situation  is  significant,  whether  viewed  from  a  political,  eco- 
nomic, or  patriotic  standpoint. 

The  second  section  of  this  bill  provides,  first,  that  on  all  oleomar- 
garine which  stands  in  its  own  color  and  not  in  the  semblance  of 
butter,  on  this  mixture  the  present  Federal  tax  shall  be  reduced  to  a 
fourth  of  one  cent  a  pound.  The  dairy  sentiment  of  the  country  would 
be  willing  that  the  uncolored  compound  should  be  relieved  of  all  taxa- 

(*1)  583 


584  OLEOMARGARINE. 

tion.  The  tax  as  provided  in  the  bill,  however,  is  trifling  and  nominal. 
This  is  done  in  the  spirit  of  fairness.  If  there  are  any  persons  who 
wish  to  eat  this  mixture  in  preference  to  butter,  who  ask  it  because 
they  are  poor,  they  would  then  be  enabled  to  buy  it  for  what  it  is 
worth.  They  could  not  be  cheated  into  paying  a  butter  price  for  some- 
thing that  in  no  honest  sense  is  butter,  or  like  butter. 

The  oleo  combine  and  their  apologists  and  defenders  have  a  great 
deal  to  say  about  oleomargarine  being  a  cheap  food  for  the  "  poor." 
There  is  consummate  hypocrisy  in  this  plea.  You  will  notice  that  the 
poor  people  are  not  making  this  plea.  It  is  made  for  the  purpose  of 
overreaching  the  poor. 

The  friends  of  this  measure  are  the  true  friends  of  the  poor,  for  they 
ask  that  the  force  of  law  and  the  burden  of  onerous  taxation  be  turned 
against  the  counterfeit,  while  the  article  which  is  not  colored  to  deceive 
can  have  free  course. 

What  does  oleomargarine  cost?  Armour  &  Co.,  of  Chicago,  testified 
before  a  Federal  district  court  in  New  York  that,  with  the  2-eent  Federal 
tax  added,  the  cost  was  less  than  7  cents  a  pound.  If  it  was  uncolored, 
the  poor  could  buy  it  for  10  cents,  or  at  most  12  cents  a  pound.  Yet 
I  saw  the  colored  article  selling  in  Ashland,  Wis.,  to  the  poor,  for  28 
cents  a  pound. 

This  plea  for  the  poor,  by  these  exploiters  of  poverty,  finds  conspic- 
uous parallel  in  the  history  of  Judas  Iscariot.  When  the  women 
annointed  the  feet  of  Christ  with  alabaster  ointment,  Judas  had  a 
great  deal  to  say  why  the  ointment  was  not  sold  and  the  money  given 
to  the  poor.  Yet  I  imagine  it  is  not  necessary  to  inform  this  commit- 
tee that  Judas  was  a  traitor  to  both  Christ  and  the  poor. 

To  give  added  force  to  the  first  section  of  this  bill  it  is  also  provided 
in  the  second  section  that  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  shall  be  imposed 
on  all  oleomargarine  in  the  color  or  semblance  of  butter.  In  plain 
words,  this  is  repressive  taxation.  In  1886  Congress,  in  response  to 
the  demand  of  the  people,  placed  a  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound  on  this 
counterfeit,  and  exacted  heavy  license  fees  for  its  manufacture  and 
sale. 

This  was  done  in  the  interest  of  the  public  welfare.  Congress  has 
the  undoubted  right  to  exercise  this  power.  It  has  exercised  it  in  the 
tax  on  State  bank  circulation,  on  filled  cheese,  and  adulterated  flour. 
This  is  a  part  only  of  the  duty  and  policy  of  internal  protection. 

It  has  been  found,  through  the  inefficient  administration  of  State 
laws  and  the  powerful  influence  of  this  oleomargarine  combination,  that 
this  protection  is  insufficient. 

The  manufacture  of  the  counterfeit  has  grown  from  34,000,000  pounds 
in  188S  to  83,000,000  in  1899,  and,  be  it  remembered,  90  per  cent  of  it 
consumed  under  the  supposition  that  it  is  butter. 

This  product  of  1899  would  make  1,383,684  60-pound  tubs.  If  placed 
side  by  side  they  would  reach  3,400  miles;  if  loaded  into  farm  wagons, 
a  full  load  in  each,  they  would  reach  400  miles  in  length.  The  output 
equaled  the  output  of  415,650  cows,  worth  $12,469,500. 

The  hoped-for  effect  of  the  legislation  asked  of  Congress  is  not  to 
destroy  the  oleomargarine  industry,  but  to  force  it  over  onto  its  own 
ground ;  to  compel  it  to  be  made  in  its  own  guise  and  color.  Is  there 
anything  unjust  or  unreasonable  about  this? 

With  a  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  on  the  counterfeit  substitute,  we 
believe  the  temptation  for  unjust  profits,  deceptive  sale,  dishonorable 
and  dangerous  conspiring  against  law,  and  fraudulent  competition  with 
an  honest  industry  will  be  greatly  modified. 

(*2) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  585 

A  great  many  people  ask  why  it  is  not  as  permissible  to  color  oleo- 
margarine as  it  is  to  color  butter.  I  would  answer  because  they  are 
not  colored  for  the  same  purpose.  Butter  in  winter  is  too  light  to  suit 
the  taste  of  most  consumers.  The  highest  value  is  in  fresh  butter  not 
more  than  ten  days  old.  The  consumer  asks  that  it  bear  the  yellow 
summer  color  of  butter.  That  is  a  matter  of  taste,  not  deception,  for 
it  is  not  colored  to  resemble  something  it  is  not.  But  oleomargarine  is 
colored  to  make  it  resemble  butter,  which  it  is  not.  It  is  colored,  not 
for  the  benefit  or  taste  of  its  consumer,  but  to  deceive  the  consumer. 

Said  President  Cleveland,  in  his  message  approving  the  oleomarga- 
rine legislation  of  1886 : 

Not  the  least  important  incident  related  to  this  legislation  is  the  defense  afforded 
to  the  consumer  against  the  fraudulent  substitution  and  sale  of  an  imitation  for  a 
genuine  article  of  food  of  a  very  general  household  use.  *  *  *  I  venture  to  say 
that  hardly  a  pound  ever  entered  a  poor  man's  house  under  its  real  name  and  in  its 
true  character. 

The  argument  still  holds  good.  Congress  was  then  asked  to  place  a 
tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  on  the  counterfeit.  Had  it  done  so,  the  relief 
would,  in  my  opinion,  have  been  ample  and  sufficient.  But  it  has  been 
proved  inadequate,  and  we  ask  for  the  passage  of  this  measure  in  its 
entirety. 

We  are  met  by  certain  abstractionists  with  the  question,  "  Would  you 
tax  one  legitimate  industry  out  of  existence  for  the  benefit  of  another?" 
To  this  I  would  answer,  No.  But  the  oleomargarine  business  is  not  con- 
ducted legitimately.  It  is  based,  from  manufacture  to  sale,  on  wrong 
and  illegitimate  methods. 

We  believe  Congress  has  the  right,  for  the  sake  of  public  welfare, 
for  the  sake  of  suppressing  fraud  and  deception  in  any  industry,  to  tax 
its  illegitimate  outcome  burdensomely,  and  for  this  reason  are  the 
farmers  and  consumers  of  the  country  making  their  wishes  known  to 
this  Congress  on  this  bill. 

Is  oleomargarine  a  healthful  food?  There  is  no*  way  to  determine 
this  question  except  by  actual  trial;  not  fora  day,  a  week,  or  a  mouth, 
but  for  several  successive  months,  and  not  with  strong,  robust  men 
with  plenty  of  outdoor  exercise. 

Chemistry  can  not  answer.  For  example,  the  chemist  will  tell  you 
that  he  finds  the  same  elements  in  swamp  peat  that  are  found  in  the 
grasses  and  hays  that  are  fed  to  our  cows,  and  in  approximately  the 
same  proportion.  And  the  chemist  is  at  a  loss  to  determine  from  the 
standpoint  of  his  science  why  cattle  should  not  feed  on  swamp  peat. 
Chemistry  can  not  determine  whether  any  particular  substance  is 
poisonous  or  not.  It  must  take  a  stomach  to  do  that. 

There  is  no  credible  evidence  to  show  that  oleomargarine  is  innocu- 
ous; no  evidence  to  show  that  when  eaten  continuously  in  place  of 
butter  it  is  not  harmful.  But  there  are  reports  in  great  abundance  to 
the  effect  that  oleomargarine  is  harmful. 

Mr.  Edmund  Hill,  a  member  of  the  Somerset  County  council,  Eng- 
land, reports  that  the  great  bulk  of  oleomargarine,  or  "margarine"  as 
it  is  called  there,  is  eaten  in  public  institutions,  convents,  schools,  etc. 
At  the  Wells  Asylum,  with  which  he  is  connected,  the  inmates  receive 
oleomargarine.  In  the  asylums  of  Dorset,  Wells,  and  Hants— the 
adjoining  counties— butter  is  furnished,  and  the  death  rate  at  Wells  is 
30  per  cent  higher.  At  the  Tauntou  Hospital  there  were  11  deaths  in 
thirteen  months.  Oleomargarine  was  substituted,  and  in  nine  months 
the  deaths  rose  to  22. 

This  accords  with  the  experience  in  France,  where  its  use  in  hospi- 

(*3) 


586  OLEOMARGARINE. 

tals  is  forbidden.  In  the  United  States,  in  institutions  for  the  blind 
and  for  girls,  it  has  been  noticed  that  the  use  of  oleomargarine  lowered 
the  vitality  of  the  inmates  very  perceptibly. 

There  is  abundant  reason  for  this.  The  normal  heat  of  the  human 
stomach  is  98°.  Butter  melts  at  92°,  6°  below  the  heat  of  the  stomach, 
passes  into  pancreatic  emulsion,  and  digestion.  Nature  designed  this 
fat  in  its  raw  state  for  food. 

Oleomargarine  melts  at  the  varying  temperature  of  102°  to  108°,  a 
temperature  no  healthful  stomach  ever  attains.  As  a  consequence, 
this  unnatural  foreign  fat  must  be  expelled  by  sheer  gastric  action  and 
force. 

Butter  fat  is  found  in  the  milk  of  all  mammals.  It  is  chemically  and 
physically  unlike  any  other  fat  in  existence.  It  was  designed  by  nature 
for  the  food  and  sustenance  of  infant  offspring,  having  the  most  deli- 
cate of  all  digestion.  Because  of  this  most  evident  purpose  and  provi- 
sion of  nature,  butter  forms  a  healthful  and  important  article  of  food 
in  milk,  cream,  and  in  its  separated  state. 

No  matter  what  paid  chemists  may  say,  no  counterfeit,  even  in  its 
purest  state,  is  wholesome  or  healthful. 

But  there  is  another  phase  of  this  question.  There  is  absolutely  no 
protection  for  the  public  against  most  dangerous  introduction  of  posi- 
tively unhealthful  compounds  into  oleomargarine. 

The  Journal  of  the  American  Chemical  Society  and  the  department  of 
agriculture  of  New  York  abound  in  proof  of  the  adulteration  of  oleo- 
margarine with  paraffin,  a  substance  which  the  strongest  acids  even 
are  unable  to  affect.  There  is  no  reason  on  earth  why  the  foulest  of 
germ-laden  fats  should  not  be  used  in  the  making  of  this  compound, 
when  once  they  are  deodorized  by  the  aid  of  chemistry. 

But  with  Dutter  it  is  different.  Any  contamination  or  hurtful  manip- 
ulation is  instantly  shown  in  a  loss  of  flavor.  Butter  always  advertises 
its  condition. 

It  should  be  considered  that  the  distinction  proposed  in  taxation 
against  colored  oleomargarine  will  bring  no  hardship  to  the  consumer 
who  may  want  this  article  as  a  cheap,  fat  substitute  for  butter.  The 
coloring  of  it  adds  nothing  to  its  digestibility  or  food  value,  if  it  have 
a  food  value.  The  whole  proposition  is  in  a  nutshell.  Force  out  the 
color  or  semblance  to  butter  and  you  put  a  stop  to  its  being  imposed 
on  the  consumer  for  butter.  In  addition  you  protect  this  great  army 
of  producers,  the  dairymen  of  the  United  States,  from  competition  with 
a  fraud  and  counterfeit. 

It  is  high  time  that  Congress  entered  upon  this  work  of  protection 
of  all  honest  and  legitimate  industries  against  the  dishonest  greed  of 
the  counterfeiter  and  adulterator. 

The  Dominion  of  Canada  has  taken  from  us  nearly  all  of  our  once 
magnificient  export  trade  in  dairy  products.  Canada  absolutely  pro- 
hibits the  making  of  counterfeit  butter  or  cheese. 

Consequently  the  Dominion  stands  high  among  all  foreign  consumers 
as  to  the  purity  and  honesty  of  its  foods. 

Our  National  Government  can  proceed  repressively  only  in  the  way 
of  taxation.  We  believe  we  are  right,  fair,  and  just,  and  in  accordance 
with  a  wise  public  policy,  in  asking  of  the  members  of  this  committee 
an  earnest  support  of  House  bill  3717. 

One  of  the  most  preposterous  arguments  advanced  in  support  of  the 
oleomargarine  business  is  that  which  is  unwittingly  put  in  the  mouths 
of  the  beef  and  hog  raisers  by  the  oleo  combine.  The  Nebraska  Farmer 


OLEOM  AEG  A  BINE.  587 

ot  February  15  exposes  the  fallacy  of  this  argument  in  an  able  edi- 
torial, from  which  we  quote  the  following  extract: 

The  National  Live  Stock  Association,  at  its  recent  meeting  at  Fort  Worth,  Tex., 
passed  a  lengthy  and  stringent  resolution  condemning  proposed  oleomargarine  leg- 
islation. This  resolution,  as  it  appears  in  the  circular  letter  sent  out  over  the  name 
of  President  Springer,  is  a  remarkable  document — remarkable  alike  for  its  arraign- 
ment of  one  class  of  agriculturists  by  another  and  in  its  disregard  for  facts  in  its 
general  narration. 

Some  of  the  false  " statements  of  fact"  in  the  general  narration  are  as  follows: 

"The  'butter  fat;  of  an  average  beef  animal,  for  the  purpose  of  making  oleomar- 
garine, is  worth  from  $3  to  $4  per  head  more  than  it  was  before  the  advent  of  oleo- 
margarine, when  the  same  had  to  be  used  for  tallow;  which  increased  value  of  the 
beef  steer  has  been  added  to  the  market  value  of  the  animal,  and  consequently  to  the 
profit  of  the  producer.  To  legislate  this  article  of  commerce  out  of  existence,  as 
the  passage  of  this  law  would  surely  do,  would  compel  slaughterers  to  use  this  fat 
for  tallow,  and  depreciate  the  market  value  of  the  beef  cattle  of  this  country  $3  to 
$4  per  head,  which  would  entail  a  loss  on  the  producers  of  this  country  of  millions 
of  dollars. 

"  The  use  of  this  fat  for  the  purpose  set  forth  is  an  encouragement  to  the  producer 
to  improve  his  herd  and  raise  a  class  of  grade  or  thoroughbred  cattle  capable  of  mak- 
ing and  carrying  this  fat,  rather  than  the  common  or  scrub  animal,  which  is  so  hard 
and  unprofitable  to  fatten ;  and  the  cattle  raiser  or  producer  has  come  to  know  the 
value  of  this  product,  and  that  the  amount  of  the  increase  in  the  market  value  of  his 
matured  animal  depends  somewhat  on  the  value  of  the  'butter  fat'  carried  by  the 
animal." 

To  show  the  absurdity  of  the  above  statements  it  is  only  necessary  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  every  steer  or  cow  butchered  by  manufacturers  oi  oleomargarine, 
if  good  enough  to  sell  for  "  dressed  beef/'  is  sold  with  the  kidney  tallow  in  the 
quarters.  This  being  true,  nothing  but  the  "gut  fat  "remains  in  the  packinghouse. 

Therefore  every  oleo  manufacturer  that  ever  lived  and  all  his  agents  are  chronic 
liars,  if  gut  fat  of  beeves  and  "butter  lat"  of  oleomargarine  are  one  and  the  same 
thing.  More  than  this,  the  gut  fat  of  beeves  averaged  an  many  pounds  per  animal 
in  1890  to  1896  as  it  does  in  1900,  and  there  were  "  workingmen  and  their  dependen- 
cies" (we  quote  from  the  resolutions)  then  as  now,  and  oleo  sold  as  a  counterfeit 
and  substitute  for  butter  then  as  now,  without  appearing  to  add  materially  to  the 
"  market  value  of  the  animal,  and  consequently  to  the  profit  of  the  producer."  (Cattle- 
men will  please  take  note  that  swine  men  claim  that  they  are  the  people  whosuffer- 
from  legislation  which  hampers  the  sale  of  bogus  butter.  Now,  what  is  your  "  but- 
t  er  fat "  for  oleomargarine?  Is  it  gut  fat  of  cattle  or  hogs'  fat!) 

The  next  fact  of  importance  in  connection  with  the  resolutions  is  the  ignorance 
of  cattle  breeding  shown  in  the  text,  therefore  the  fair  presumption  that  not  live- 
stock breeders,  but  a  packing-house  attorney,  wrote  the  resolution.  We  call  atten- 
tion to  the  statement,  "  The  use  of  this  fat  for  the  purpose  set  forth  (making  a 
counterfeit  of  butter)  is  an  encouragement  to  the  producer  to  improve  his  herd  and 
raise  a  class  of  grade  or  thoroughbred  cattle  capable  of  making  and  carrying  this 
fat,  rather  than  the  common  or  scrub  animal,"  etc. 

Every  breeder  of  cattle  understands  that  the  value  of  improved  breeds  depends 
on  the  capacity  of  the  improved  animal  to  give  a  larger  proportion  of  cuts  of  good 
meat  to  the  rough  fat  (gut  fat  or  "batter  fat,"  just  as  you  choose),  and  that  the 
chief  objection  to  the  scrub  steer  or  dairy-bred  steer  is  the  excess  of  fat,  as  com- 
pared with  meat  cuts,  due  largely  to  a  failure  of  the  scrub  animal  to  carry  the  sur- 
plus fat  among  tbe  meat  tissue.  Hence  the  falsehood  of  the  assertion  that  increase 
of  rough  fat  in  beeves  encourages  improved  breeding. 

This  resolution  seems  to  have  been  introduced  to  the  stockmen's  convention  by 
one  C.  W.  Baker,  of  Illinois,  and  it  seems  to  be  one  of  those  cases  where  the  stock 
men  have  been  trapped  into  pulling  the  packing-house  chestnuts  out  of  the  fire. 

STATEMENT  OF  CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT. 

My  business  is  that  of  editor  of  the  Chicago  Dairy  Produce,  a  pub- 
lication devoted  to  the  dairy  and  butter  business.  I  have  for  the 
past  three  years  been  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Union,  an  organ- 
ization of  farmers  who  keep  cows,  and  others  engaged  in  pursuits 
allied  therewith.  This  organization  at  present  comprises  about  30,000 
members  who  are  farmers,  and  they  are  scattered  all  over  the  United 
States.  The  organization  has  for  its  aim  the  protection  of  producers 


588  OLEOMARGARINE. 

and  consumers  of  dairy  products  against  fraud,  and  its  officers  serve 
absolutely  without  further  compensation  than  their  actual  and  neces- 
sary expenses  incurred  in  the  discharge  of  their  duty.  No  officer  has 
ever  received  one  cent  salary,  but  upon  the  other  hand  they  have  spent 
hundreds  of  dollars  in  expenses  while  working  in  the  interest  of  the 
cause,  for  which  no  account  has  ever  been  rendered  the  organization. 

I  have  had  charge  of  the  work  of  organization  and  the  collection  of 
facts  regarding  the  oleomargarine  traffic  of  this  country,  and  it  is  the 
enormous  illegal  and  fraudulent  growth  of  the  business  during  the  past 
two  years,  in  face  of  the  best  restrictive  laws  the  States  have  been  able 
to  devise,  that  has  brought  us  to  Congress  as  a  last  resort  to  ask  for 
relief. 

THE   ORIGINAL  OLEOMARGARINE  LAW. 

For  the  information  of  the  committee,  all  of  the  members  of  which 
may  not  be  familiar  with  the  history  of  national  legislation  along 
this  line,  I  will  state  that  fourteen  years  ago,  finding  the  powers  of  the 
State  helpless  to  cope  against  the  peculiar  character  of  this  fraud,  the 
dairymen  of  this  country  arose  en  masse  and  came  to  Congress  for 
relief,  feeling  that  nothing  but  Congressional  action  would  save  their 
business  from  absolute  ruin.  They  convinced  Congress  that  national 
legislation  was  necessary,  and  the  result  was  that  numerous  measures 
were  introduced  for  their  relief.  The  matter  of  legislating  against  a 
counterfeit  article,  however,  was  found  to  be  a  complex  proposition  for 
Congress  because  of  the  constitutional  restrictions  which  prevent  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  exercising  police  powers  except  for  the 
protection  of  its  revenue  receipts,  interstate  commerce,  and  other  mat- 
ters absolutely  within  the  limits  of  the  Constitution,  and  after  months 
of  tedious  investigation  and  effort,  what  is  known  as  the  Hatch  bill 
was  finally  originated  by  the  Committee  on  Agriculture,  and  brought 
into  the  House. 

PROVISIONS  OF  THE  HATCH  BILL. 

At  that  time  it  was  thought,  as  many  have  become  to  believe  since, 
that  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  could  not  be  permitted 
and  at  the  same  time  protect  the  public  against  fraud.  Acting  upon 
this  theory  the  government  of  Canada  did  and  has  ever  since  abso- 
lutely prohibited  the  traffic  in  any  character  or  condition  and  oleomar- 
garine is  not  permitted  to  be  sold  in  that  country  in  any  way,  shape,  or 
manner.  France,  where  oleomargarine  originated  as  a  necessity  during 
the  Franco  Prussian  war,  found  it  impossible  to  protect  its  people 
against  fraud,  and  even  its  present  law  forbidding  the  sale  of  that 
article  in  any  store  or  shop  where  butter  is  sold  is  not  considered  ade- 
quate— a  law  which  would  not  stand  under  our  Constitution  a  week 
because  of  the  great  scope  of  liberty  afforded  under  our  form  of  gov- 
ernment. Germany  has  also  adopted  the  same  plan,  which  has  not 
proven  satisfactory,  and  various  other  measures  are  being  suggested 
in  that  country.  In  fact,  Denmark,  Australia,  Eussia,  Italy,  Spain, 
and  every  other  European,  antipodean,  and  Asiatic  country  has  found 
the  same  trouble  in  endeavoring  to  control  this  deceitful  substitute  for 
butter. 

It  will  therefore  be  seen  that  the  Agricultural  Committee  had  before 
it  a  perplexing  problem,  and  one  which  it  seemed  to  finally  despair  of 
solving  and  at  the  same  time  permit  the  article  to  survive  in  commerce, 
the  result  of  which  was  the  recommendation  of  a  measure  which  would 

(*6) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  589 

have  been  pretty  close  to  entire  prohibition  of  the  entire  traffic  had  it 
been  passed  as  recommended.  I  simply  cite  these  facts  and  conditions 
to  give  the  committee  something  of  an  idea  of  the  great  provocations 
which  existed  at  that  time,  as  reflected  by  these  recommendations,  it 
having  been  found  almost  impossible  then  to  secure  butter  whose 
purity  could  be  guaranteed,  unless  it  came  direct  from  the  farm  to  the 
consumer. 

RECOMMENDED  A  TEN-CENT  TAX. 

The  recommendations  of  that  committee  were  many,  and  the  outcome 
of  their  investigations  a  complete  scheme  for  the  taxation  and  regula- 
tion of  oleomargarine  through  the  Internal- Re  venue  Department,  which 
taxation  would  put  the  article  within  the  constitutional  control  of  the 
Government  and  thereby  permit  the  branding  requirements  which  were 
desired  at  that  time  to  be  enforced  by  the  National  Government.  A 
tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  was  recommended,  regardless  of  color,  by  that 
committee. 

EXPECTED  LAW  TO  BE  ENFORCED. 

The  Agricultural  Committee,  however,  did  not  then  know  as  much  as 
the  public  knows  to-day  about  the  Internal  Be  venue  Department.  It 
was  the  impression  of  Congress  that  when  the  revenue  law  required 
every  retailer  to  brand  his  package  sold  the  consumer,  that  this,  as  well 
as  all  other  provisions  of  the  measure  would  be  enforced.  It  was  because 
of  the  impression  that  this  branding  clause  alone  would  give  the  public 
protection  that  the  10  cent  tax  was  finally  cut  down  to  5  cents  in  the 
House  and  2  cents  in  the  Senate,  the  argument  being  that  the  2-cent 
tax  would  give  about  revenue  enough  to  permit  the  revenue  depart- 
ment to  pay  the  expenses  of  enforcing  the  branding  clause. 

WHAT  HAS  BEEN  THE  RESULT? 

We  have  now  had  about  fourteen  years  of  that  2-cent  tax.  And  what 
has  been  the  result  "?  Has  the  fraudulent  sale  of  oleomargarine  ceased  ? 
Not  at  all !  It  only  required  two  or  three  years  to  develop  the  fact 
that  the  Internal  Eevenue  Department  was  not  in  sympathy  with  any 
measure  that  required  the  exercise  of  a  police  surveillance  where  rev- 
enue was  not  absolutely  at  stake.  For  instance,  the  payment  of  this 
2-cent  tax  is  enforced  of  the  manufacturer  when  the  oleomargarine  is 
produced.  No  package  is  permitted  to  go  out  of  the  factory  until  the 
tax  has  been  paid.  So  far  as  the  article  itself  is  concerned  all  its  lia- 
bilities to  the  Government  are  discharged  when  that  2-cent  tax  is  paid 
and  the  proper  brands  and  stamps  are  placed  upon  the  original  import- 
ers7 packages.  It  then  goes  to  the  retailer  to  sell  to  consumers,  and  it 
loses  the  Government  no  money  if  the  retailer  does  not  comply  with 
the  police  regulations  requiring  each  package  to  be  marked.  There- 
fore there  is  no  incentive  for  the  Government  to  follow  up  the  matter 
and  see  to  it  that  the  branding  clause  is  complied  with. 

The  following  communication  from  the  dairy  commissioner  of  Wis- 
consin as  to  the  attitude  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Department  toward 
this  feature  of  the  law  of  1886  exactly  describes  the  experience  of  the 
people  of  Illinois  and  many  other  States  in  this  respect.  This  letter 
has  just  been  received,  and  is  therefore  late  evidence: 

CHAS.  Y.  KNIGHT,  National  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Some  time  ago  you  asked  me  concerning  the  enforcement  of  the  Fed- 
eral oleomargarine  law  by  the  internal-revenue  department  in  Michigan.  I  can  only 

(*7) 


590  OLEOMARGARINE. 

say  that  my  experience  covering  the  last  three  years  as  dairy  commissioner  fortifies 
me  in  saying  that,  outside  of  the  collection  of  the  revenue  tax,  the  Federal  authori- 
ties in  Michigan  do  absolutely  nothing  to  enforce  the  national  law.  I  have  person- 
ally offered  to  furnish  the  proof  for  violations  of  the  Federal  law,  but  no  steps  were 
ever  taken  to^  change  existing  conditions  or  to  punish  such  violators.  It  is  a  fact 
that  scarcely  "a  retailer  in  Michigan  conforms  to  the  requirements  of  the  Federal 
law — a  condition  which  has  existed,  to  my  certain  knowledge,  for  the  past  three 
years. 

Very  respectfully,  ELLIOTT  O.  GROSVENOR, 

Commissioner. 

And  I  will  further  quote  from  a  recent  interview  with  Collector 
Coyne,  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  who  was  visited  by  a  reporter  of  the  Chi- 
cago Record  with  packages  of  oleomargarine  which  he  had  purchased 
for  butter,  not  stamped  according  to  law.  The  Kecord  said  : 

Internal  Revenue  Collector  Coyne's  attention  was  called  to  these  violations  of  the 
law  yesterday  and  the  wrappers  exhibited.  He  said : 

"  I  am  always  willing  to  prosecute  violators  of  the  revenue  laws,  and  I  am  glad  to 
have  these  cases  called  to  my  attention.  It  is  unfortunate  that  I  have  to  depend 
on  the  public  for  my  information,  however.  I  have  19  counties,  including  Cook,  to 
look  after,  and  the  15  deputies  I  am  allowed  have  about  2,000  special  taxpayers 
in  their  respective  districts.  These  include  breweries,  saloons,  cigar  dealers  aud 
manufacturers,  oleomargarine  makers  and  dealers,  aud  many  others.  The  force  is 
not  large  enough  for  me  to  watch  every  retailer — 2,000  men  would  be  required  to  do 
that.  Nor  cau  the  deputies  make  oases  by  purchasing  butter  or  its  substitute,  for 
they  have  no  fund  for  that. 

"  Whenever  a  citizen  comes  to  me  and  tells  me  of  a  case  of  this  kind  I  am  always 
willing  to  do  my  duty  as  the  law  sets  it  forth.  I  have  been  accused  by  both  sides 
of  leaning  toward  the  other,  but  neither  party  is  right  in  making  these  charges.  If 
I  am  called  before  the  agricultural  commission  I  shall  be  glad  to  tell  what  I  know — 
aud  that  is  more  than  I  can  tell  the  public  in  my  present  position.  The  books  of 
this  department  are  not  open  to  the  people,  but  I  can  assure  you  that  many  violators 
of  the  oleomargarine  laws  have  suffered." 

This  is  not  intended  as  a  criticism  of  the  department,  but  is  intro- 
duced to  show  the  utter  weakness  of  the  law  of  1886,  and  to  prove  that 
we  have  grounds  for  coming  again  to  Congress  for  relief. 

WHY  THE  10-CENT  TAX  ON  COLORED  OLEOMARGARINE? 

We  expect  to  show  to  the  satisfaction  of  Congress  that  national 
legislation  of  the  character  embraced  in  H.  K.  3717,  known  as  the 
Grout  bill,  with  its  10-cent  tax  provision,  is  absolutely  essential  to 
prevent  the  almost  absolute  destruction  of  an  industry  bringing  to 
the  agriculturists  of  this  country  fully  $500,000,000  per  year. 

First.  Because  oleomargarine,  when  made  in  exact  imitation  in  pack- 
age and  color  of  butter,  is  an  ideal  counterfeit,  furnishing  a  commodity 
which  can  be  readily,  and  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  with  safety,  palmed 
off  upon  the  known  but  unskilled  consumer  as  butter  at  butter  prices, 
as  only  a  chemical  analysis  will,  with  a  degree  of  certainty  necessary  in 
evidence,  establish  the  identity  of  the  substitute. 

Second.  Because  the  large  profit  resulting  from  the  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine as  butter  in  itself  furnishes  incentive  to  practice  fraud  and 
means  of  protection  in  case  of  detection,  and  to-day,  with  the  traffic 
aggregating  close  to  100,000,000  pounds  per  year,  the  sum  collected 
through  the  assessment  of  even  a  fraction  of  a  cent  per  pound  as  a  fund 
for  defense  is  sufficiently  large,  when  judiciously  expended  through 
organized  channels,  to  render  prosecutions  so  expensive  that  in  many 
of  the  States  the  courts  have  scarcely  the  capacity  to  handle  offenders, 
so  numerous  have  they  become  under  the  persistent  and  aggressive 
solicitation  of  the  wealthy  manufacturers. 

Third.  Twenty  years  of  experience  has  demonstrated  the  fact  that 
oleomargarine,  colored  in  semblance  of  butter,  placed  in  the  hands 


OLEOMAKGABINE.  591 

of  a  dealer,  can  be  sold  at  his  discretion  as  either  oleomargarine  or 
butter.  He  need  not  be  susceptible  to  detection  in  fraud  so  long  as  he 
confines  his  dealings  to  known  customers,  whom  he  knows  will  not 
spend  days  of  time  upon  the  witness  stand  to  convict  him  of  a  fraud 
small  in  detail,  but  enormous  in  aggregate;  therefore,  the  only  safe 
method  for  preventing  these  frauds,  so  enormous  in  the  aggregate,  is 
to  prevent  the  article  being  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  trade  in  such 
form  that  it  can  be  used  with  profit  for  deceptive  purposes. 

Fourth.  This  policy  has  been  adopted  by  32  States,  containing,  accord- 
ing to  the  census  of  1890,  over  50,000,000  of  the  62.000,000  people  of 
this  country,  each  of  which  has  passed  a  law  absolutely  forbidding 
the  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  semblance  of  yellow  butter.  These 
laws  have  been  in  force  in  some  States  for  twelve  years,  and  no  State 
has  ever  repealed  one. 

Fifth.  The  laws  of  all  these  32  States  are  continually  and  system- 
atically violated,  clandestinely  in  some  and  in  open  defiance  in  others. 
Oleomargarine  manufacturers  make  no  pretense  of  observing  State 
laws  where  the  legal  machinery  for  their  enforcement  is  not  absolutely 
invincible,  and  do  not  hesitate  to  come  before  Congress  in  protest 
against  an  act  which  at  best  would  simply  give  the  States  the  assist- 
ance of  the  National  Government  in  protecting  their  people  as  they 
desire  to  be  protected. 

Sixth. — The  oleomargarine  manufacturers,  while  openly  professing  a 
desire  to  have  their  product  sold  for  what  it  is,  secretly  sometimes  and 
openly  at  others,  urge  dealers  to  sell  it  for  butter,  and  circumstances 
connect  a  number  of  these  manufacturers  with  some  of  the  most  gigan- 
tic and  widespread  swindles  ever  perpetrated  in  business  affairs. 

Seventh.  The  only  persons  who  really  profit  from  the  sale  of  yellow 
oleomargarine  are  those  who  practice  deception  in  its  sale  or  are  the 
beneficiaries  of  such  deception ;  the  color  in  the  article,  conflicting  with 
State  laws,  causes  the  dealer  to  hesitate  to  sell  it  unless  the  profit  is 
sufficiently  large  to  compensate  him  for  the  injury  likely  to  accrue  to 
his  business  in  case  of  prosecution.  Manufacturers  openly  assure 
dealers  that  there  is  double  the  profit  in  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  that 
can  be  had  from  the  sale  of  butter — which  in  itself  is  evidence  that 
there  must  be  something  peculiar  about  the  trade,  and  they  do  not 
hesitate  to  openly  guarantee  protection  against  the  efforts  of  the  State 
to  enforce  the  laws. 

Eighth.  The  present  internal-revenue  law,  enacted  in  1886,  has 
entirely  failed  in  its  purpose.  In  this  act  Congress  placed  a  tax  of  2 
cents  per  pound  upon  oleomargarine,  not  as  a  revenue  measure  for  the 
General  Government,  but  to  raise  sufficient  funds  with  which  to  enable 
the  Government  to  enforce  the  clause  requiring  the  branding  of  every 
package,  even  to  the  sale  by  the  retailer  to  the  consumer.  This  reve- 
nue has  been  faithfully  collected  by  the  Government.  But  throughout 
the  entire  country  but  one  exclusive  inspector  has  ever  been  furnished 
to  see  to  its  enforcement  by  the  internal  revenue  department.  Not  only 
does  the  internal  revenue  department  make  no  effort  to  carry  out  the 
intent  of  the  framers  of  the  law,  but  those  who  have  endeavored  to 
secure  the  enforcement  of  such  clauses  requiring  branding  by  the 
retailer  have  been  led  to  believe  that  for  the  purpose  of  increasing 
revenue  the  various  collectors  wink  at  such  violations.  The  law  of  1886 
now  does  little  else  than  furnish  violators  of  the  State  laws  the  defense 
that  their  business  is  "under  the  supervision  of  the  Government,  which 
provides  a  complete  system  of  regulation." 

Ninth.  A  system  of  regulation,  to  be  effective,  must  be  one  which 

(*9) 


592  OLEOMARGARINE. 

can  be  applied  to  the  responsible  manufacturer  in  whatever  part  of  the 
country  he  may  be  found.  Any  tax  imposed  will  be  collected.  No 
regulation  prescribed  will  be  enforced  by  the  internal-revenue  depart- 
ment unless  its  violation  is  likely  to  impair  the  revenue.  The  more 
the  branding  clause  of  the  1880  law  is  violated  the  greater  the  revenue, 
because  the  oleomargarine  pays  the  tax  whether  sold  for  what  it  is  or 
as  butter,  and  more  is  sold  for  butter  than  oleomargarine.  A  tax  of 
10  cents  per  pound,  if  levied,  would  be  collected  upon  all  oleomarga- 
rine, colored  to  resemble  butter.  The  collection  of  this  tax  alone  would 
accomplish  the  result  of  taking  out  of  the  counterfeit  article  the  large 
profit  now  held  up  before  the  eyes  of  the  retailers  as  an  incentive  to 
commit  fraud  and  violate  State  laws,  and,  profits  on  oleomargarine  and 
butter  being  equalized,  each  would  have  a  fair  chance  of  sale. 

Tenth.  The  use  of  the  taxing  power  of  the  Government  to  accomplish 
this  result  would  not  be  the  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  the  States  to 
regulate  their  own  affairs.  It  would  simply  be  the  cooperation  of  the 
General  Government  with  the  States  upon  petition  of  their  people  to 
do  a  thing  they  had  failed  to  accomplish  individually,  and  enough  people, 
through  their  legislatures,  have  already  adopted  the  policy  of  exclud- 
ing yellow  oleomargarine  to  have  the  moral  force  of  a  constitutional 
amendment. 

Eleventh.  The  claims  of  damage  to  the  beef-raising,  cotton -growing, 
or  hog  industries  is  an  impudent  and  easily  exploded  argument  to 
secure  the  antagonism  of  the  cattle  raisers  of  the  North  and  cotton 
growers  of  the  South  to  this  measure  and  induce  them  to  rush  to  the 
defense  of  a  class  of  manufacturers  who,  with  their  records  as  law- 
breakers, can  hardly  have  standing  before  a  body  of  law-makers 
representing  States  whose  statutes  they  are  openly  ignoring,  boldly 
defying,  or  secretly  evading. 

Twelfth.  The  policy  of  prohibiting  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine  in 
imitation  of  butter  has  the  approval  of  the  highest  authority  in  the 
decision  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  Plumley  v.  Massachu- 
setts (155th  W.  S.)  in  which  such  a  law  as  is  now  in  force  in  thirty-two 
States  was  strongly  upheld  upon  the  grounds  that  it  was  plainly  a  reg- 
ulation in  the  interests  of  honest  dealings,  and  again  in  Schollenberger 
v.  Pennsylvania (171st  Federal  Report).  Such  laws  have  been  before  the 
supreme  courts  of  many  States  and  never  in  a  single  instant  has  such 
policy  been  declared  doutrary  to  their  constitutions. 

Thirteenth.  While  the  questions  of  healthfulness  might  be  an  inter- 
esting one  in  this  connection,  we  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  permit  our- 
selves to  be  drawn  into  a  controversy  which  at  best  would  resolve 
itself  into  the  expensive  and  time  consuming  confusion  of  a  war  of  paid 
experts,  which  was  thoroughly  investigated  in  1886  by  the  Agriculture 
Committee,  with  a  result  of  recommending  a  10  cent  tax  on  all  oleomar- 
garine, and  is  now  a  matter  of  record  easily  accessible  to  all  who 
desire  to  consult  it  in  the  files  of  the  Congressional  Eecord. 

All  we  ask  is  that  the  people  be  protected  in  the  right  to  choose 
between  the  two  articles.  If  the  makers  of  oleomargarine  can  convince 
the  public  that  their  product  is  all  they  claim  for  it,  we  are  willing  that 
the  people  thus  convinced  should  be  enabled  to  purchase  that  article 
If  cents  per  pound  cheaper  than  can  be  done  under  the  present  law. 
Our  charge  is  fraud  in  selling  to  the  people  an  article  they  do  not 
intend  to  buy  at  the  price  of  what  they  desire  to  purchase.  Because 
an  article  may  be  proven  to  be  healthful  is  no  reason  why  it  should  be 
permitted  to  be  fraudulently  substituted  for  another.  Can  the  adulter- 
ation of  pepper  with  corn  meal  be  excused  and  defended  upon  the 

(no) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  593 

ground  that  corn  meal  is  a  healthful  article  of  foodf  What  would  be 
said  of  the  defense  of  a  butcher  who  sold  horse  meat  as  beefsteak  to 
his  customer  and  set  up  the  plea  that  the  horse  flesh  was  as  "  nutritious 
and  healthful  as  beefsteak?" 

CONGRESS  OUR  LAST  RESORT. 

We  have  not  appealed  to  Congress  for  aid  along  the  line  of  discour- 
aging the  sale  of  oleomargarine  made  in  semblance  of  butter  until  the 
matter  of  accomplishing  the  same  result  through  State  legislation 
has  been  thoroughly  tested  and  proven  a  failure.  And  this  fact  we 
believe  to  be  our  strongest  argument  in  favor  of  Congressional  action. 

The  various  States  have  tried  all  kinds  of  legislation.  The  attempt 
to  control  the  actions  of  the  retailer  with  a  counterfeit  article  in  his 
hands  has  been  abandoned  by  practically  every  one  of  the  leading  States. 
To  day  thirty-two  States,  with  four-fifths  (50,117,440)  of  the  population, 
according  to  the  census  of  1890,  have  passed  laws  absolutely  prohibiting 
the  sale  of  oleomargarine  made  in  imitation  of  butter.  This  issue  has 
been  fought  out  in  the  legislatures  of  these  various  States,  and  these 
measures  have  received  the  stamp  of  approval  of  their  law-making 
bodies  and  the  indorsement  of  their  governors. 

The  following  compilation  of  the  substance  of  the  dairy  laws  of  the 
United  States  was  published  by  the  Agricultural  Department  under 
the  seal  of  Secretary  Wilson  a'year  ago,  and  copies  of  the  laws  in  full 
may  be  had  from  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture: 

ALABAMA — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  February  18,  1895.) 

No  article  which  is  in  imitation  of  pure  yellow  butter,  and  is  not  made  wholly 
from  pure  milk  and  cream,  shall  be  manufactured,  sold,  or  used  in  any  public  eating 
place,  hospital,  or  penal  institution,  etc. ;  but  oleomargarine,  free  from  color  or 
other  ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,  and  made  in  such  manner  as  will 
advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  is  permitted.  It  must  be  stamped  with 
its  name. 

ARIZONA. 

No  dairy  laws. 

ARKANSAS— MUST  BE  LABELED. 
(Approved  April  2, 1885.) 

Substitutes  for  butter,  whether  in  wholesale  or  retail  packages,  shall  be  plainly 
labeled  "Adulterated  butter,"  "  Oleomargarine,"  or  such  other  names  as  shall  prop- 
erly describe  them.  In  hotels,  etc.,  dishes  containing  said  articles  must  be  plainly 
marked  in  same  manner. 

CALIFORNIA— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  March  4, 1897.) 

Imitation  butter  and  cheese  is  denned  as  any  article  not  produced  from  pure  milk 
or  cream,  salt,  rennet,  and  harmless  coloring  matter,  which  is  in  semblance  of  butter 
or  cheese  and  designed  as  a  substitute  for  such.  Shall  not  be  colored  to  imitate 
butter  or  cheese,  ami  must  be  in  such  form  as  will  advise  consumer  of  its  real  char- 
acter. Every  package  must  be  plainly  marked  "Substitute  for  butter"  or  "Sub- 
stitute for  cheese"  and  accompanied  by  a  statement  giving  name  of  manufacturer, 
ingredients,  etc.,  a  copy  of  which  must  be  given  to  each  purchaser,  with  verbal 
notice,  at  the  time  of  sale,  in  connection  with  which  words  like  ''creamery,"  "dairy," 
etc.,  are  prohibited.  Patrons  of  eating  places  shall  be  notified  if  substitutes  of 
butter  or  cheese  are  used.  Prohibited  in  State  charitable  institutions. 


'S.  Rep.  204:3 38  (*ll) 


594  OLEOMAKGAKINE. 

COLORADO — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  April  1, 1895.) 

All  articles  not  produced  from  pure  milk  or  cream,  in  imitation  of  pare  cheese  or 
yellow  butter,  are  prohibited;  but  oleomargarine  and  filled  cheese  are  permitted  if 
free  from  color  or  other  ingredient  to  cause  them  to  look  like  butter  or  cheese;  they 
must  be  made  in  such  form  and  sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of 
their  real  character.  Cheese  containing  any  foreign  fats,  oleaginous  substances, 
rancid  butter,  etc.,  shall  be  branded  "Imitation  cheese. " 

CONNECTICUT — ANTI-COLOR  LAW. 
(Public  Acta,  1895.) 

Imitation  butter,  defined  as  any  article  resembling  bntter  in  appearance  and  not 
made  wholly,  salt  and  coloring  matter  excepted,  from  cow's  milk,  is  prohibited; 
but  oleomargarine  or  imitation  butter,  free  from  color  or  other  ingredient  to  cause 
it  to  look  like  butter,  and  made  in  such  form  and  sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise 
consumer  of  its  real  character,  is  permitted.  Words  like  ''butter,"  "dairy,"  etc., 
shall  not  form  a  part  of  its  name  or  appear  on  its  package.  Imitation  butter  shall 
be  sold  only  in  labeled  packages,  or  registered  places  which  display  signs,  and  pur- 
chasers shall  be  informed  orally  of  the  character  of  the  article  at  the  time  of  sale. 
Use  of  imitation  butter  in  public  eating  places,  bakeries,  etc.,  must  be  made  known 
by  signs. 

DELAWARE — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Passed  May  8,  1895.) 

The  manufacture  or  sale  of  any  article  not  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or 
cream,  which  is  in  imitation  of  pure  yellow  butter  or  designed  to  take  the  place  of 
pure  cheese,  is  prohibited ;  but  oleomargarine  is  permitted  if  in  a  distinct  form,  free 
from  butter  color  and  sold  in  such  manner  as  to  show  its  real  character;  it  shall  be 
plainly  marked  "Oleomargarine." 

DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA— BRANDING  LAW. 
(Approved  March  2,  1895.) 

Substances  in  semblance  of  butter  or  cheese,  not  made  exclusively  of  milk  or 
cream,  but  with  the  addition  of  melted  butter  or  any  oil,  shall  be  plainly  branded 
on  each  package  "Oleomargarine,"  and  a  label,  similarly  printed,  must  accompany 
each  retail  sale. 

FLORIDA — MUST  NOTIFY  GUESTS. 
(Approved  February  17, 1881.) 

The  sale  of  any  spurious  preparation,  purporting  to  be  butter,  is  prohibited. 
Guests  at  hotels,  etc.,  must  be  notified  if  oleomargarine  or  other  spurious  butter  is 
used. 

GEORGIA — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  December  16, 1895.) 

Imitation  butter  and  cheese  are  defined  as  any  article  not  produced  from  pure 
milk  or  cream— salt,  rennet,  and  coloring  matter  excepted — in  semblance  of  bntter  or 
cheese  and  designed  to  be  used  as  a  substitute  for  either.  Shall  not  be  colored  to 
resemble  butter  or  cheese.  Every  package  must  be  plainly  marked  "  Substitute  for 
butter"  or  "Substitute  for  cheese,"  and  each  sale  shall  be  accompanied  by  verbal 
notice  and  by  a  printed  statement  that  the  article  is  an  imitation,  the  statement 
giving  also  the  name  of  the  producer.  The  use  of  these  imitations  in  eating  places, 
bakeries,  etc.,  must  be  made  known  by  signs. 

IDAHO— BRANDING  REQUIRED. 
(Approved  January  27, 1885.) 

Brand  required  for  sale  of  oleomargarine  or  butterine,  imitation  butter,  or  mixture 
imitating  butter.  These  shall  not  be  sold  as  butter. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  595 

ILLINOIS — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 

(Approved  June  14, 1897.) 

Imitation  butter  is  defined  as  any  article  not  produced  from  pure  milk  or  cream— 
salt,  rennet,  and  coloring  matter  excepted — in  semblance  of  butter  and  designed  to 
be  used  as  a  substitute  for  it.  Shall  not  be  colored  to  resemble  butter.  All  packages 
must  be  plainly  branded  "  Oleomargarine,"  "Butterine,"  "Substitute  for  butter,"  or 
"Imitation  butter."  Each  sale  shall  be  accompanied  by  notice  to  the  purchaser  that 
the  substitute  is  imitation  butter. 

INDIANA — LABEL  LAW. 

Butter  other  than  that  made  from  pure  milk,  when  sold  or  used  in  hotels,  etc., 
must  be  plainly  labeled  "Oleomargarine." 

IOWA — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Passed  in  1893.) 

Imitation  butter  or  cheese  is  defined  as  an  article  not  produced  from  pure  milk  or 
cream — salt,  rennet,  and  coloring  matter  excepted — in  semblance  of  butter  or  cheese 
and  designed  to  be  sold  as  a  substitute  for  either  of  them.  Shall  not  be  colored  to 
resemble  butter  or  cheese.  Every  package  shall  be  plainly  marked  "  Substitute  for 
butter"  or  "Substitute  for  cheese,"  and  each  sale  shall  be  accompanied  by  a  verbal 
notice  and  a  printed  statement  that  the  article  is  an  imitation,  the  statement  giving 
also  the  address  of  the  maker.  The  use  of  these  imitations  in  hotels,  bakeries,  etc., 
must  be  made  known  by  signs. 

KANSAS. 

No  law. 

KENTUCKY — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Act  of  1898.) 

Oleomargarine,  butterine,  or  kindred  compound,  made  in  such  form  and  sold  in 
such  manner  as  will  advise  the  customer  of  its  real  character,  and  free  from  color  or 
other  ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,  is  permitted. 

LOUISIANA— LABEL  LAW. 
(Approved  July  6, 1888.) 

Such  substances  as  oleomargarine,  butterine,  bogus  butter,  etc.,  shall  be  plainly 
labeled  to  indicate  their  composition.  They  shall  not  be  sold  as  butter. 

MAINE — ANTICOLOB  LAW. 
(Approved  March  27, 1895.) 

Any  article  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  or  cheese  and  not  made  exclusively  of 
milk  or  cream  is  prohibited. 

MARYLAND — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Passed  in  1888.) 

The  manufacture,  sale,  or  use  in  public  eating  places  of  any  article  in  imitation 
of  and  designed  to  take  the  place  of  pure  butter  or  cheese,  and  not  made  wholly  from 
milk  or  cream,  is  prohibited.  Mixtures  of  any  animal  fats  or  animal  or  vegetable 
oils  with  milk,  cream,  or  butter  shall  be  un colored,  and  marked  with  names  and 
percentages  of  adulterants,  and  this  information  shall  be  given  to  purchasers. 

MASSACHUSETTS— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  June^ll,  1891.) 

An  article  made  wholly  or  partly  out  of  any  fat  or  oil,  etc.,  not  from  pure  cream, 
and  which  is  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter,  is  prohibited;  but  oleomargarine,  free 
from  color  or  other  ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,  and  made  in  such 
form  and  sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  is 


(*13) 


596  OLEOMARGABINE. 

permitted.  It  shall  not  be  sold  as  butter,  nor  shall  words  like  "  dairy,"  "creamery," 
etc..  or  the  name  of  any  breed  of  dairy  cattle,  be  need  in  connection  with  it.  All 
packages  exposed  for  sale  must  be  plainly  marked  "  Oleomargarine,"  and  labels 
similarly  marked  must  accompany  retail  sales.  Stores  where  it  is  sold  and  wagons 
used  for  delivery  must  display  signs,  and  hotels,  etc.,  using  it  must  notify  gue»ts. 
Persons  selling  oleomargarine  must  be  registered  and  conveyors  licensed. 

MICHIGAN— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  April  15, 1897.) 

Any  article  not  made  wholly  from  milk  or  cream,  and  containing  melted  butter, 
fats,  or  oils  not  produced  from  milk,  and  which  is  in  imitation  of  pure  butter,  is 
prohibited ;  but  oleomargarine,  free  from  color  or  any  ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look 
like  butter,  and  made  in  such  form  and  sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  con- 
sumer of  its  real  character  is  permitted ;  its  sale  as  butter  is  prohibited;  signs  must 
be  displayed  where  it  is  sold  or  used,  and  its  original  packages  must  be  plainly 
marked  "Oleomargarine"  if  the  article  contains  suet  or  tallow,  or  "Butterine"  if 
it  contains  lard ;  retail  sales  shall  be  made  from  a  package  so  marked,  and  a  label 
similarly  printed  and  bearing  the  name  of  the  manufacturer  shall  be  delivered  with 
each  sale;  shall  not  be  used  in  any  public  institution.  (N.  B. — The  above  law  was 
invalidated  in  1897  by  the  supreme  court  because  of  the  fact  that  the  enacting  clause 
was  omitted  when  it  passed  the  senate.) 

MINNESOTA — ANTICOLOR  LAW.  . 

(Approved  1899.) 
/ 

This  law  prohibits  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  made  in  imitation  of  butter,  and 
took  the  place  of  the  pink  law  of  1891. 

MISSISSIPPI — LABEL  LAW. 
(Approved  March  9,  1882.) 

Packages  of  oleomargarine  or  similarly  manufactured  butters  shall  be  plainly 
labeled  with  the  correct  name  of  their  contents,  and  the  product  shall  be  sold  by 
that  name.  A  privilege  tax  of  $5  is  imposed  upon  persons  selling  the  articles  named. 

MISSOURI — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  April  19, 1895.) 

Imitation  butter  is  defined  as  every  article  not  produced  wholly  from  pure  milk 
or  cream,  made  in  semblance  of  and  designed  to  be  used  as  a  substitute  for  pure 
butter ;  it  shall  not  be  sold  as  butter ;  shall  not  be  colored  to  resemble  butter  unless 
it  is  to  be  sold  outside  the  State;  original  packages  shall  be  plainly  stamped  "Sub- 
stitute for  butter;"  in  hotels,  etc.,  vessels  in  which  it  is  served  must  be  marked 
"Oleomargarine^ or  "Impure  butter." 

MONTANA — TAXED   10  CENTS  A  POUND. 
(Penal  code  of  1895.) 

Any  article  in  semblance  of  butter  or  cheese,  and  not  made  wholly  from  milk  or 
cream  must  be  plainly  labeled  "  Oleomargarine"  or  "Imitation  cheese,"  and  a  printed 
label  bearing  the  same  word  or  words  must  be  delivered  to  the  purchaser  with  retail 
sales.  Places  where  these  articles  are  sold  or  used  must  display  signs,  and  informa- 
tion as  to  their  character  be  given  if  requested.  Dealers  must  pay  a  license  of  10 
cents  a  pound  on  each  pound  sold. 

NEVADA — BRANDING  LAW. 
(Approved  Feb.  14,  1881.) 

Any  article  in  semblance  of  butter  but  not  made  exclusively  of  milk  or  cream,  01 
containing  melted  butter,  shall  be  in  packages  plainly  marked  "Oleomargarine." 

NEBRASKA — ANTICOLOR_LAW. 
(Approved  March  16, 1895. ) 

Imitation  butter  and  cheese  are  defined  as  any  article  made  in  semblance  of  and 
designed  to  be  used  as  a  substitute  for  pure  butter  or  cheese  and  not  produced 


OLEOM  ARGAKINE.  597 

wholly  from  pure  milk  or  cream,  salt,  rennet,  and  harmless  coloring  matter.  These 
articles,  including  any  having  melted  butter  added  to  them,  shall  not  be  colored  to 
resemble  butter  or  cheese;  shall  be  plainly  marked  "Imitation  butter,"  or  "Imita- 
tion cheese ;"  verbal  and  printed  information  of  the  character  of  the  articles,  and 
address  of  the  maker,  shall  be  given  at  time  of  sale;  signs  shall  be  displayed  in 
public  eating  places  where  used. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  March  29, 1895.) 

Any  article  not  made  wholly  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream,  which  is  in  imita- 
tion of  pure  yellow  butter  or  cheese,  is  prohibited,  unless  in  packages  plainly  marked 
"Adulterated  butter,"  "Oleomargarine/'  or  "Imitation  cheese."  A  label  printed 
with  the  words  on  the  original  package  shall  be  delivered  with  each  retail  sale. 
Oleomargarine,  free  from  color  or  ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,  and  made 
in  such  form  and  sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  charac- 
ter, is  permitted.  Notice  of  the  use  of  substitutes  for  butter  in  hotels,  etc.,  shall  be 
given  to  patrons. 

NEW  JERSEY— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 

(Approved  March  22,  1886.) 

Any  article  made  wholly  or  partly  out  of  any  fat,  oil,  etc.,  not  from  pure  milk  or 
cream,  artificially  colored  in  imitation  of  pure  yellow  butter,  is  prohibited;  but 
oleomargarine  and  imitation  cheese  are  permitted,  if  free  from  artificial  color  and  in 
original  package,  encircled  by  a  wide  black  band  bearing  the  name  of  the  maker 
and  having  the  name  of  the  contents  plainly  branded  on  them  with  a  hot  iron. 
Retail  sales  shall  be  accompanied  by  a  printed  card  on  which  the  name  of  the  sub- 
stance and  the  address  of  the  maker  are  plainly  printed,  and  the  customer  shall  be 
orally  informed  of  the  character  of  the  article  at  the  time  of  sale. 

NEW  MEXICO. 

No  law. 

NEW  YORK — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 

(Approved  April  10,  1893.) 

The  terms  oleomargarine,  butterine,  imitation  butter,  or  imitation  cheese  mean 
any  article  in  the  semblance  of  butter  or  cheese  not  the  usual  product  of  the  dairy 
and  not  made  exclusively  from  unadulterated  milk,  or  having  any  oil,  lard,  melted 
butter,  etc.,  as  a  component  part.  Imitation  butter. — The  manufacture  of  oleomarga- 
rine or  any  article  in  imitation  of  butter  wholly  or  partly  from  fats  or  oils  not  pro- 
duced from  milk,  or  the  sale  or  the  use  in  hotels,  etc.,  of  such  articles,  is  prohibited. 
No  article  intended  as  an  imitation  of  butter  and  containing  oils,  fats,  etc.,  not  from 
milk,  or  melted  butter  in  any  condition,  shall  be  colored  yellow. 

• 

NORTH  CAROLINA — LABOR  LAW. 
(Ratified  February  28, 1895.) 

Oleomargarine  and  bntterine  are  defined  as  articles  manufactured  in  imitation  of 
butter,  and  which  are  composed  of  no  ingredient  or  ingredients  in  combination  with 
butter.  Original  packages  shall  be  labeled  with  chemical  ingredients  and  their 
proportions. 

NORTH   DAKOTA — ANTICOLOR   LAW. 

(Laws  of  1899.) 

Law  prohibits  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  semblance  oi 
butter. 

OHIO — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  May  16, 1894.) 

Oleomargarine  is  defined  as  any  substance  not  pure  butter  of  not  less  than  80  per 
cent  butter  fat  and  made  for  use  as  butter.  It  is  permitted  if  free  from  coloring  mat- 
ter or  other  ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,  and  made  in  such  form  and 
sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character. 


(*15) 


598  OLEOMARGARINE. 

OKLAHOMA. 

No  laws. 

OREGON— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 

(Filed  February  21, 1899.) 
Forbids  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  semblance  of  butter. 

PENNSYLVANIA— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 

(Passed  in  1899.) 
Prohibits  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  made  in  semblance  of  butter. 

RHODE  ISLAND — BRANDING  LAW. 

(Laws  of  1882.) 

Any  article  not  made  wholly  from  milk  or  cream,  but  containing  any  melted  butter 
or  animal  oil  or  fat  not  the  product  of  milk,  shall  be  plainly  marked  "Oleomarga- 
rine," and  a  label  similarly  printed  shall  be  delivered  with  all  retail  gales. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 

( Approred  March  9,  1896.) 

Imitation  butter  and  cheese  are  defined  as  every  article  not  produced  from  pure 
milk  or  cream,  with  or  without  salt,  rennet,  and  harmless  coloring  matter,  which  is 
in  semblance  of,  and  designed  to  be  used,  as  a  substitute  for  butter  or  cheese ;  they 
shall  not  be  colored  to  resemble  butter  or  cheese;  original  packages  shall  be  marked 
"Substitute  for  butter,"  or  "Substitute  for  cheese;"  shall  not  be  sold  as  genuine 
butter  or  cheese,  nor  used  in  hotels,  etc.,  unless  signs  are  displayed* 

SOUTH  DAKOTA — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 

(Laws  of  1897.) 

Any  article  not  made  wholly  from  pure  milk  or  cream,  and  m  imitation  of  pure 
butter,  is  prohibited ;  but  oleomargarine,  colored  pink  and  made  in  such  form  and 
sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  is  permitted ; 
notice  of  its  use  in  public  eating  places  must  be  given. 

TENNESSEE — ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
|( Act  of  1895.) 

Any  article  which  is  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  and  not  made  exclusively  from 
pure  milk  or  cream  is  prohibited;  but  oleomargarine,  free  from  color  or  other 
ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,  and  made  in  such  form  and  sold  in  such 
manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  true  character,  and  other  imitations  if 
uncolored  and  labeled  with  their  correct  names  are  permitted ;  wholesale  packages 
shall  be  plainly  labeled  and  a  label  shall  accompany  retail  sales. 

TEXAS. 
No  law. 

UTAH— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 

(Approved  MarchJ8,|1894.) 

Any  article  in  semblance  of  butter  or  cheese,  and  not  made  wholly  from  milk  or 
cream,  shall  be  plainly  marked  "  Oleomargarine  butter,"  or  "Imitation  cheese,"  and 
retail  sales  shall  be  made  from  packages  so  marked.  Such  articles  shall  not  be  col- 
ored to  resemble  butter  or  cheese. 

VERMONT— PINK  LAW. 
(Laws  of  1884.) 

The  manufacture  of  any  article  in  imitation  of  butter  or  cheese  which  contains 
any  animal  fat,  or  animal  or  vegetable  oils  or  acids  not  produced  from  pure  milk  or 
cream,  is  prohibited. 

Imitation  butter. — Imitation  butter  for  use  in  public  eating  places,  or  for  sale,  shall 
be  colored  pink. 

(*16) 


OLEOM  AEG  AEINE.  599 

VIRGINIA— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  January  29, 1898.) 

The  manufacture  or  sale  of  any  article  made  wholly  or  partly  from  any  fat  or 
oil  not  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream,  which  is  in  imitation  of  pure 
yellow  butter,  is  prohibited;  but  oleomargarine,  butterine,  or  kindred  compound, 
made  in  such  form  and  sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real 
character,  and  free  from  color  or  other  ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,  is 
permitted.  Signs,  with  the  words  "Imitation  butter  used  here,"  shall  be  displayed 
in  eating  places,  bakeries,  etc.,  where  the  articles  above  named  are  used. 

WASHINGTON— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Approved  March  11, 1895.) 

No  article  which  is  in  imitation  of  pure  yellow  butter  and  is  not  made  wholly 
from  pure  milk  or  cream,  with  or  without  harmless  coloring  matter,  shall  be  manu- 
factured, sold,  or  used  in  any  public  eating  house  or  eleemosynary  or  penal  institu- 
tion, etc.,  but  oleomargarine,  free  from  color  or  other  ingredient  to  make  it  look 
like  butter,  and  made  in  such  form  and  sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the 
consumer  of  its  real  character,  is  permitted. 

WEST  VIRGINIA— PINK  LAW. 
(Approved  February  16, 1891.) 

Any  substance  in  semblance  of  butter  or  cheese,  and  not  made  wholly  from  impure 
milk  or  cream,  and  packages  containing  such  substances,  shall  be  plainly  marked; 
printed  statements  explaining  the  character  of  the  substance  must  be  given  to 
•onsumers. 

Oleomargarine. — Oleomargarine  and  artificial  and  adulterated  batter  shall  be 
colored  pink. 

WISCONSIN— ANTICOLOR  LAW. 
(Laws  of  1895.) 

Any  article  made  partly  or  wholly  out  of  any  fat  or  oil,  etc.,  not  from  pare  milk  or 
cream,  and  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter,  is  prohibited ;  but  oleomargarine,  free 
from  color  or  other  ingredient  to  make  it  look  like  butter,  and  made  in  such  form 
and  sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  is  permit- 
ted. It  shall  not  be  sold  as  butter.  All  packages  exposed  for  sale  must  be  plainly 
marked  "Oleomargarine."  Signs  must  be  displayed  in  selling  places  and  on  wagons. 
Hotels,  etc.,  using  it  mast  notify  guests.  Use  not  permitted  in  charitable  or  penal 
institutions. 

WYOMING. 

No  dairy  laws. 

STATES  WITH  ANTICOLOR  LAWS. 

The  population  of  the  States  which  have  passed  laws  forbidding  the 
sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  semblance  of  butter,  as  shown  by  the 
census  of  1890,  is  as  follows: 


Population. 

New  York 5, 997, 853 

Pennsylvania 5,228,014 

Illinois 3,826,351 

Ohio 3,672,316 

Missouri 2,679,184 

Massachusetts 2, 238, 943 

Michigan 2,093,889 

Iowa 1,911,896 

Kentucky 1,858,635 

Georgia 1,837,353 

Tennessee 1, 766, 518 

Wisconsin 1,686,880 

Virginia 1,655,980 

Alabama 1,513,017 

New  Jersey 1,444,933 

Minnesota 1,301,826 

California 1,208,130  |             Total 50,117,440 

(*17) 


Population. 

South  Carolina 1, 151, 149 

Nebraska 1,058,910 

Maryland 1,042,390 

West  Virginia 762,794 

Connecticut 746,253 

Maine 661,086 

Colorado 41^,198 

New  Hampshire 376,530 

Washington 349,390 

Oregon 313,767 

Vermont 332,442 

South  Dakota 328,808 

Utah 207,905 

North  Dakota 182,711 

Delaware 168,493 


600 


OLEOMARGAKINE. 


The  States  and  Territories  which  have  not  passed  laws  forbidding  the 
sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  semblance  of  butter  are  : 


Population. 

Texas 2,235,523 

Indiana 2,192,404 

North  Carolina 1,617,947 

Kansas 1,427,096 

Mississippi 1,289,700 

Arkansas 1,128,179 

Louisiana 1,118,587 

Florida 321,422 

Rhode  Island 345,506 

District  of  Columbia 230, 392 


New  Mexico. 

Montana 

Idaho 

Oklahoma... 
Wyoming  . . . 

Arizona 

Nevada  . . 


Population. 

153, 593 

132, 156 

84,385 

61,834 

60,  705 

59, 620 

45,  761 


Total 12,604,790 


MAKE  NO  PRETENSE  OF  OBEYING  STATE  LAWS. 

"Why,"  you  will  ask,  "if  you  have  State  laws  in  these  States  do  you 
need  national  legislation?" 

As  far  back  as  1886,  when  this  matter  first  came  before  Congress,  the 
States  had  learned  of  the  impossibility  of  controlling  this  traffic  through 
State  laws.  The  article  oleomargarine  when  made  in  semblance  of  but- 
ter is  an  absolute  counterfeit.  The  dealer  himself  could  not  distinguish 
one  from  the  other  should  they  lose  their  labels.  The  retailer  carries 
the  butter  and  oleomargarine  in  the  same  refrigerator.  When  butter  is 
called  for  by  a  customer  whom  he  knows  is  not  likely  to  be  an  inspec- 
tor, he  can  with  little  fear  of  detection  take  the  order  from  the  oleo- 
margarine tub  instead  of  the  butter  tub.  Maybe  the  strange  or 
uncertain  customer  will  receive  pure  butter,  if  he  desires  to  take  no 
chances,  but  upon  those  of  whom  he  feels  certain  are  not  detectives  he 
can  practice  deception  day  in  and  day  out  with  little  chance  of  detec- 
tion, and  in  case  of  detection  it  is  a  very  easy  matter  to  plead  uninten- 
tional mistake,  and  thus  at  least  allay  the  wrath  of  the  customer,  who 
has  no  desire  to  appear  from  time  to  time  in  court  in  order  to  punish 
the  dealer  for  an  offense  which  alone  seems  insignificant.  Then,  aside 
from  this  condition,  the  former  laws  gave  no  protection  to  the  guest  of 
the  hotel,  restaurant,  or  boarding  house,  who  asks  and  pays  for  pure 
butter  and  is  given  a  counterfeit. 

It  was  such  a  condition  which  provoked  the  States  to  an  absolute 
prohibition  of  the  traffic  in  colored  oleomargarine.  This  was  not  done 
until  every  effort  had-  been  made  to  enforce  the  branding  laws,  and 
until  it  was  demonstrated  that  the  Internal  Revenue  Department  was 
giving  no  attention  to  that  clause  in  the  national  law  requiring  the 
retailer  to  brand  every  package  of  oleomargarine  plainly. 

For  a  few  years  these  laws  forbidding  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine 
in  semblance  of  butter  were  effective.  However,  they  demonstrated  to 
to  the  oleomargarine  makers  one  fact,  which  the  majority  probably 
knew  before:  The  success  of  the  oleomargarine  business  had  rested 
wholly  upon  the  ability  of  the  seller  to  sell  at  least  a  portion  of  the 
goods  he  handled  as  butter  at  butter  prices,  and  upon  the  success  of 
the  hotel  and  restaurant  keepers  to  make  their  patrons  believe  they 
were  consuming  butter.  If  they  were  not  allowed  to  color  their  grease 
in  such  imitation,  and  its  identity  was  made  known  through  such  lack 
of  color,  the  opportunity  for  deception  and  large  profits  were  entirely 
wiped  out.  The  man  who  really  desired  oleomargarine  insisted  upon 
buying  it  upon  the  basis  of  values  of  tallow,  lard,  and  cotton-seed  oil 
instead  of  paying  butter  prices.  This  would  result  in  a  business  with 

(*18) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  601 

only  moderate  profits,  with  an  opportunity  for  broad  competition,  which 
seemed  small  compared  with  former  profits  and  prices. 

The  outcome  has  been  a  new  policy  upon  the  part  of  the  makers  of 
oleomargarine.  No  place  in  the  country,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  ascer- 
tain, are  they  making  an  effort  to  create  a  market  for  their  goods 
under  its  own  true  color  and  in  accordance  with  State  laws.  In  Illinois 
two  years  ago,  when  the  anticolor  law  was  first  passed  and  some  retail 
dealers  made  an  effort  to  sell  the  uncolored  article  in  compliance  with 
the  law,  they  were  discouraged  by  an  extra  charge  of  "2  cents  per 
pound  for  oleomargarine  without  coloring  in  it.  It  was  at  this  time 
that  the  firm  of  Armour  &  Co.,  of  Chicago,  through  the  decision  of 
Philip  D.  Armour,  retired  from  this  business  entirely  and  has  not  since 
handled  a  pound  of  oleomargarine,  Mr.  Armour  giving  it  out  that  he 
was  a  law-abiding  citizen  and  would  not  countenance  the  violation  of 
the  laws  of  his  own  State. 

The  remaining  manufacturers,  however,  throughout  the  country, 
entirely  abandoned  any  pretense  of  obeying  State  laws.  They  adopted 
the  policy  of  going-  to  the  retail  dealers  and  urging  them  to  violate  the 
laws  of  their  State.  They  provide  for  a  defense  fund,  and  whenever 
prosecutions  are  made  those  prosecuted  are  defended  by  the  best  of 
legal  talent,  attorneys  who  have  made  a  study  of  the  question  of 
harassing  the  State  and  securing  continuances  or  dismissals  through 
legal  technicalities.  The  ordinary  State's  attorney  can  not  cope  with 
these  experienced  practitioners  upon  this  subject,  as  a  rule,  and  never 
is  money  spared  to  make  the  prosecution  as  expensive  to  the  State  and 
as  disagreeable  to  those  connected  therewith  as  possible. 

Therefore,  in  attempting  to  enforce  its  laws  the  ^tate  is  not  dealing 
with  the  retailer,  who,  if  unsupported,  would  remain  a  law-abiding 
citizen.  Upon  the  other  hand,  every  time  an  arrest  is  made  the  fight 
is  taken  up  by  the  entire  oleomargarine  industry,  with  its  millions  of 
money  and  enormous  influence  among  a  certain  class  of  politicians  who 
at  times  manage  to  reach  the  sacred  ear  of  the  judge  who  presides  in 
the  case. 

The  prosecution  of  such  offenders  requires  the  very  highest  grade  of 
talent,  and  their  conviction  experience  and  a  statute  which  will  stand 
the  onslaught  of  the  most  resourceful  lawyers.  A  law  may  have 
answered  for  years  in  regulating  other  evils,  but  when  contested  by 
such  ability  as  is  employed  by  the  oleomargarine  millions,  might  be 
picked  to  pieces  and  rendered  absolutely  worthless  through  the  manip- 
ulations and  researches  of  the  experienced  tricksters.  No  technical- 
ity is  too  small  for  them  to  take  advantage  of  and  make  the  prosecu- 
tion the  expense  of  a  test  case  in  the  Supreme  Court. 

However,  the  actual  condition  of  the  oleomargarine  traffic  as  it 
exists  to-day  is  probably  the  best  indication  of  the  inability  of  the 
States  to  enforce  their  laws  against  this  subject. 

The  oleomargarine  makers  contend  that  the  people  will  not  eat  their 
product  unless  it  has  the  color  of  butter.  They  will  not  admit  that  it 
is  possible  to  sell  any  quantity  uncolored.  Therefore  it  is  entirely  safe 
to  assume  that  the  oleomargarine  made  during  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1899,  was  made  in  semblance  of  butter  almost  to  a  pound. 
The  statement  of  Secretary  Gage  in  response  to  Congressman  Tawuey's 
resolution  showed  where  the  product  of  this  year  had  been  consumed. 

The  table  below  exhibits  the  number  of  pounds  sold  in  each  State  as 
shown  by  Secretary  Gage's  report,  the  compiler  hereof  having  divided 
the  list  into  two  classes;  first,  showing  the  amount  sold  in  States 

(*19) 


602 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


where  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  made  in  semblance  of  butter  is  abso- 
lutely prohibited,  and,  second,  the  States  in  which  it  was  legal  to  sell 
such  oleomargarine: 

Yellow  oleomargarine  sold  contrary  to  law  in  1899. 


Number 
of  dealers. 

Quantity 
sold. 

Number 
of  dealers. 

Quantity 
sold. 

Alabama  

21 

Pounds. 
226,  053 

New  York       

14 

Pound*. 
222  788 

California 

74,923 

North  Dakota 

18 

7  710 

Colorado 

95 

1,123,537 

Ohio 

1  005 

8  830  969 

5 

134,255 

3 

41  250 

Delaware         .     ....  ..... 

48 

40  475 

Pennsylvania 

717 

11  433  341 

61 

495  004 

South  Carolina 

24 

258  159 

Illinois    . 

2,020 

18,  638,  921 

South  Dakota 

4 

65  432 

3 

79  922 

83 

714  640 

Kentucky  .               ....... 

217 

1,  490,  577 

Utah 

8  450 

Maine 

17 

102,  274 

1 

2  990 

Maryland 

58 

1,791  950 

Virginia 

121 

1  159  400 

Massachusetts  ............ 

108 

2,  083,  889 

Washington    

5 

63,345 

Minnesota                           . 

30 

1,343  865 

West  Virginia 

172 

1  206  865 

Missouri  

231 

3,  133,  313 

Wisconsin     ..      ...... 

23 

714,  742 

Nebraska 

73 

1  024,  985 

New  Hampshire  

19 

445,  583 

T»t»l  

5,492 

62,  825,  582 

New  JerseV 

296 

5  875  975 

Oleomargarine  sold  in  States  where  legal  to  color. 


Number 
of  dealers. 

Quantity 

sold. 

Number 
of  dealers. 

Quantity 
sold. 

Alaska      

5 

Pounds. 
18  080 

Mississippi              

17 

Pound*. 
104  622 

A  rkan'saa  

35 

380,  389 

Montana  

446  022 

5 

78  767 

Nevada 

625 

District  of  Columbia  

61 

816,  848 

New  MPTIOO       .......... 

12 

115,  850 

Florida 

82 

590  225 

North  Carolina 

9 

110  224 

Idaho  

3 

58,224 

Oklahoma          

10 

117,  398 

306 

3  923  228 

Rhode  Island 

333 

3  594  984 

Indian  Territory  . 

21 

152,  278 

Texas  

162 

1,  518,  264 

186 

1  658  544 

5 

39  547 

140 

1  043  502 

Michigan 

109 

2  092  521 

Total 

1  501 

16  860  141 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  62,825,582  of  the  total  of  79,685,724  pounds 
reported  shipped  into  the  various  States  were  sold  in  violation  of  the 
laws  of  the  various  States.  There  were  but  16,860,142  pounds  sold 
legally,  and  a  very  large  percentage  of  that  was  unquestionably  sold 
as  butter. 

We  feel,  therefore,  that  in  setting  forth  the  above  facts  and  condi- 
tions we  are  basing  our  appeal  upon  evidence  which  is  unimpeachable. 
The  record  of  the  existence  of  these  anticolor  laws  for  years  in  the 
various  States  without  a  single  repeal  or  demand  for  repeal  by  the 
actual  consumer  is  evidence  that  the  people  are  not  anxious  for  oleo- 
margarine colored  in  semblance  of  butter.  The  expansion  of  the  traffic 
the  past  two  years  has  not  been  the  result  of  the  demand  of  the  people 
for  oleomargarine,  but  is  the  result  of  the  greed  for  profit  which  has 
induced  retailers  by  the  thousands  to  risk  prosecution,  with  a  guar- 
anty of  protection,  in  order  to  secure  the  large  profits  in  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  for  butter. 

Is  it  right,  therefore,  that  the  will  of  four-fifths  of  our  people,  as 
reflected  by  their  legislatures,  should  be  defied  by  a  few  manufac- 
turers of  an  outlawed  article?  When  an  expression  of  four-fifths  of  our 
people  favors  this  policy  of  discouraging  the  manufacture  of  colored 

(*20) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  603 

oleomargarine,  and  no  protests  come  from  the  actual  consumers  among 
the  remaining  one-fifth,  should  Congress  hesitate  to  accept  it  as  prac- 
tically the  unanimous  wish  of  the  people  that  everything  possible  be 
done  to  discourage  this  fraud  by  whatever  means  in  its  power? 

Possibly  the  most  comprehensive  way  in  which  to  get  at  the  merits 
of  our  case  is  to  answer  the  objections  to  the  imposition  of  a  ten-cent 
internal-revenue  tax  upon  oleomargarine  colored  to  resemble  butter, 
as  urged  by  Swift  &  Co.,  of  Chicago,  one  of  the  leading  manufac- 
turers of  that  article,  who  are  now  doing  business  in  the  State  of 
Illinois  in  contravention  and  defiance  of  a  State  law  passed  with  a  two- 
thirds  majority  by  the  Illinois  legislature  in  1897.  Swift  &  Co.  say,  in 
a  letter  mailed  every  member  of  Congress  under  date  of  January  27, 
1900: 

THE  MAGNITUDE  OF  THE  INDUSTRY. 

"  First.  Oleomargarine  has  been  manufactured  in  this  country  for 
about  twenty-five  years,  and  in  its  manufacture  there  is  now  invested 
more  than  $15,000,000,  furnishing  employment  to  many  thousand  men. 
The  wholesale  and  retail  sale  and  delivery  of  oleomargarine  furnish 
employment  to  25,000  men.  There  is  probably  $15,000,000  to  $20,000,000 
invested  in  the  wholesale  and  retail  trade,  separate  and  apart  from  the 
manufacture  of  the  article." 

Here,  as  well  as  in  every  other  effort  to  influence  Congress  by  hold- 
ing up  to  public  gaze  the  "enormous  proportions "  of  the  oleomarga- 
rine industry,  Swift  &  Co.  have  evidently  included  in  what  they  term 
the  "manufacture  of  oleomargarine "  the  neutral  lard  and  oleo-oil 
industry,  which  will  be  treated  thoroughly  under  the  department 
devoted  to  the  effect  of  the  Grout  bill  upon  the  live- stock  interests. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  Messrs.  Braun  &  Fitts  and  William  J. 
Moxley,  of  Chicago,  produce  almost  if  not  quite  one-third  of  all  the 
oleomargarine  manufactured  in  the  United  States.  The  combined 
extreme  rating  of  these  firms  by  Dun  is  $400,000.  While  we  do  not 
doubt  that  their  resources,  from  profits  earned  during  the  past  few  years, 
is  greatly  in  excess  of  this  amount,  anybody  who  is  acquainted  with 
their  establishments  can  readily  realize  that  the  rating,  so  far  as  money 
actually  invested  is  concerned,  is  amply  liberal.  If  it  took  an  investment 
of  $400,000  to  produce  one-third  of  the  oleomargarine  made  in  this 
country — not  the  oleo  oil  and  neutral  lard — then  their  estimate  of 
$15,000,000  as  the  amount  invested  in  the  oleomargarine  manufacturing 
business  is  more  than  twelve  times  too  high. 

SOME  ABSURD  FIGURES. 

Just  contemplate,  if  you  please,  the  statement  of  Swift  &  Co.  that 
"there  is  now  more  than  $15,000,000"  invested  in  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine,  "  employing  many  thousand  people." 

And  "the  wholesale  and  retail  sale  and  delivery  of  oleomargarine 
furnish  employment  to  20,000  men."  Also  that  "there  is  probably 
$15,000,000  to  $20,000,000  invested  in  the  wholesale  and  retail  trade 
separate  and  apart  from  the  manufacture  of  the  article," 

If  this  is  true,  let  us  sum  up  the  total  coat  of  handling  this  product 
of  83,000  pounds  made  in  1898-99,  according  to  the  statement  of  Swift 
&  Co.  as  to  the  number  of  people  employed  outside  of  those  in  the 

(*21) 


604  OLEOMARGARINE. 

factories,  and  the  interest  upon  the  capital  which  they  claim  to  be  in- 
vested : 

Six  per  cent  on  $20,000,000  claimed  to  be  invested  by  wholesale  and  retail 
dealers $1,200,000 

Six  per  cent  upon  tbe  $15,000,000  capital  employed  in  manufacturing,  as 
claimed  by  Swift  &  Co 000,000 

Wages  of  25,000  persons  engaged  in  the  handling  of  oleomargarine,  at 
$750  per  year  each 18, 750, 000 

Total  cost  of  one  year's  business  of  handling  oleomargarine,  out- 
side of  wages  of  factory  employees  and  cost  of  materials 20, 850, 000 

Add  to  this  claimed  expense  the  actual  expense  of  manufacture  of 
probably  2  cents  per  pound,  $1,600,000;  the  present  2-cent  tax,  aggre- 
gating $1,660,000  more,  and  the  average  cost  of  materials,  probably  8 
cents  per  pound,  and  we  have  a  total  cost  of  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleo- 
margarine, according  to  Swift  &  Co.,  as  follows : 

Interest  on  capital,  cost  of  handling,  as  shown  in  foregoing  table $20, 850, 000 

Cost  of  manufacturing 1, 660, 000 

Cost  of  2-cent  tax ., 1,660,000 

Cost  of  raw  material,  at  8  cents  per  pound 6, 640, 000 

Paid  for  wholesale,  retail,  and  manufacturer's  licenses  (estimated) 300, 000 

Total  cost  of  83,000,000  pounds 29,110,000 

Or,  to  reduce  it  to  pounds  and  cents,  it  requires  an  expenditure  of 
35.06  cents  to  produce  a  pound  of  oleomargarine,  which,  the  same  tirm 
says  a  little  further  along,  "sells  at  an  average  of  10  cents  per  pound  " ! 

What  does  Congress  think  of  such  an  attempt  to  mislead  its  members 
upon  this  matter? 

Were  not  the  statement  of  Swift  &  Co.  made  ridiculous  in  itself  by 
the  claims  of  the  importance  of  the  oleomargarine  traffic,  their  plea 
might  find  an  answer  in  the  counterclaim  that  every  man  employed  in 
the  oleomargarine  traffic  displaces  at  least  three  men  who  hitherto  had 
found  employment  upon  the  farm,  and  that  the  greater  the  showing 
made  by  this  industry  the  greater  the  necessity  for  Congressional 
action  to  check  a  growth  which  is  prima  facie  illegal. 

THE  INGREDIENTS  OP  OLEOMARGARINE. 

In  their  statement  Swift  &  Co.  have  the  following  to  say  regarding 
the  ingredients  of  oleomagarine: 

Second.  Oleomargarine  is  an  absolutely  pure  and  healthful  product.  It  contains 
the  following  ingredients : 

1.  Oleo  oil:  A  selected  fat  from  beef  that  is  obtained  from  the  caul  fat.    This  is 
the  principal  ingredient.     This  fat  is  thoroughly  washed,  thrown  into  a  vat  of  ice 
water  to  remove  the  animal  heat,  then  thoroughly  cooked,  cooled,  and  put  into 
hydraulic  presses,  by  which  the  oil  is  extracted,  the  residue  being  commercially 
known  as  stearin. 

2.  Neutral:  This  is  the  leaf  lard  of  the  pig.    The  leaf  fat  when  taken  out  of  the 
animal  is  thoroughly  washed  and  put  into  a  refrigerator,  where  it  remains  twenty- 
four  hours.     It  is  then  thoroughly  cooked.    It  is  absolutely  without  color,  being 
snow  white,  and  has  neither  taste  nor  odor.     Both  pigs  and  cattle  are  examined  by 
Government  inspectors  before  and  after  killing,  thereby  insuring  protection  against 
disease.    England,  France,  Germany,  Holland,  and  many  other  foreign  countries 
where  oleomargarine  is  manufactured  more  extensively  than  in  the  United  States 
depend  entirely  upon  American  manufacturers  for  oleo  oil  and  neutral. 

3.  Cotton-seed  oil:  This  ingredient  is  not  always  used;  it  is  used  in  limited  quan- 
tities in  the  medium  grade.    The  oil  is  extracted  from  selected  cotton  seed  and  then 
highly  refined.     It  is  a  pure,  sweet  product  and  is  used  quite  generally  for  cooking 
purposes.     Prominent  chemists  have  asserted  that  it  has  the  same  qualities  as  and 
is  equally  digestible  with  the  best  of  olive  oil. 

4.  Milk. 

5.  Salt. 

(*22) 


OLEOMAEGARINB.  605 

Specific  reports  do  not  sustain  the  statement  above  that  oleo  oil  is  the 
principal  ingredient  of  oleomargarine.  These  proportions  we  find  vary 
according  to  the  interest  addressed.  When  the  cotton  seed  oil  interests 
are  being  appealed  to  for  opposition  to  this  measure,  cotton  seed  oil  is 
a  principal  ingredient;  when  the  aid  of  the  cattle  growers  is  solicited, 
oleomargarine  is  made  almost  wholly  of  oleo  oil. 

When  the  oleomargarine  interests  were  before  Congress  in  1886,  one 
of  the  leading  manufacturers  gave  the  Agricultural  Committee  the  fol- 
lowing description  of  the  ingredients  of  the  two  principal  grades: 

Creamery  butterine  is  usually  composed  of  25  per  cent  creamery  butter,  40  per  cent 
neutral,  20  per  cent  oleo  oil,  and  the  balance  milk,  cream,  and  salt. 

Dairy  butterine  differs  from  creamery  only  in  the  proportions.  It  is  a  cheaper 
product,  and  its  proportion  of  butter  about  10  per  cent,  neutral  45  per  cent,  and  oleo 
oil  25  per  cent,  the  balance  being  made  up  of  cream,  milk,  and  salt. 

The  closest  research  indicates  that  30  per  cent  on  the  average  is  a 
high  estimate  of  the  proportion  of  oleo  oil  contained  in  oleomargarine. 
The  highest  temperature  to  which  such  oil  can  safely  be  subjected  is 
150°  F.,  which  does  not  "cook"  anything,  not  being  up  to  the  boiling 
point,  and  the  higher  the  temperature  of  the  fat  in  rendering,  the  poorer 
the  grade. 

While  cotton-seed  oil  may  not  be  used  always,  it  is  certainly  a  very 
important  ingredient  in  th«  lower  grades.  We  have  nothing  to  say 
regarding  the  healthfulness  of  cotton-seed  oil.  The  fact  that  caustic 
soda  and  potash  are  used  in  refining  may  not  be  detrimental  to  its 
healthfulness. 

However,  it  may  be  interesting  in  this  connection  to  read  a  paragraph 
from  a  handbook  on  "The  manufacture  of  cotton  seed  oil  and  allied 
products,  including  cake,  meal,  foots,  soap  stock,  etc.,"  published  by  the 
National  Provisioner,  of  New  York  City.  In  describing  one  grade  of  oil 
it  says,  on  pages  32-33 : 

The  winter  oil  is  a  production  of  the  yellow  (summer)  oil,  made  by  the  foregoing 
treatment,  together  with  the  supplementary  process  of  filtration,  and  is  obtained  by 
the  chilling  process,  the  solid  matter  formed  being  known  as  stearin,  used  in  the 
butterine  and  soap-making  industries. 

PROCESS  OF  MANUFACTURING  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Continuing,  Swift  &  Co.  say: 

Third.  The  process  of  manufacturing  is  somewhat  as  follows: 
The  ingredients  are  churned  together  for  about  thirty  minutes  in  a  large  steel 
churn ;  after  churning,  the  oleomargarine,  which  is  then  in  a  liquid  state,  is  chilled 
by  passing  through  ice  water,  worked  thoroughly  to  get  out  the  moisture,  packed 
in  tubs  and  cases,  branded  according  to  the  requirements  of  the  revenue  laws,  and 
is  ready  for  market.  There  is  a  small  quantity  of  coloring  matter  introduced  in 
the  product  to  give  it  the  rich  yellow  color  which  has  always  been  a  feature  of  this 
product,  and  was  such  feature  long  before  it  became  a  feature  of  butter.  All  the 
ingredients  are  strictly  pure,  clean,  and  thoroughly  cooked,  so  that  there  is  no  need 
of  any  preservative  other  than  salt,  nor  is  any  other  ever  used.  If  the  oleomarga- 
rine is  properly  made  it  does  not  become  rancid  and  will  keep  in  any  climate.  In 
respect  to  its  purity,  cleanliness,  and  freedom  from  becoming  rancid,  it  far  exceeds 
the  best  of  butter. 

Regarding  the  process  of  manufacture  we  have  nothing  to  say, 
except,  however,  to  challenge  the  attempt  upon  the  part  of  these  oleo- 
margarine makers  to  make  it  appear  that  butter  is  an  imitation  of 
oleomargarine  in  color  instead  of  oleomargarine  being  an  imitation  of 
butter. 

(*23) 


606  OLEOMARGARnm 

This  is  made  clear  and  the  whole  fraudulent  practices  of  the  oleomar- 
garine makers  laid  bare  by  a  circular  letter  sent  out  April  5, 1899,  by 
William  J.  Moxley,  of  Chicago.  The  letter  follows : 

[Willliam  J.  Moxley,  manufacturer  office  butterine,  63  and  65  W.  Monroe  street.] 

CHICAGO,  April  5,  1899. 

NOTICE  TO   THE   TRADE. 

Inclosed  find  a  color  card,  which  is  as  near  the  color  of  our  butterine  as  the 
printer's  art  can  represent.  Our  aim  in  sending  you  this  card  is  to  aid  you  in  select- 
ing the  proper  color  suitable  to  your  trade.  Mistakes  are  easily  made,  but  hard  to 
remedy. 

In  nearly  every  section  of  the  country  there  is  a  difference  in  the  color  of  butter, 
and  even  in  certain  seasons  of  the  year  there  is  a  change,  as  you  will  have  noticed. 
In  winter  butter  is  of  a  lighter  color  than  in  summer.  In  many  sections  this  is  the 
result  of  the  difference  in  feed  or  pasture. 

We  can  give  you  just  what  you  want  at  all  seasons  if  we  know  your  requirements. 
As  an  example,  No.  1  lias  no  coloring  matter;  No.  2  a  little  coloring,  and  so  on  to  No. 
8,  which  is  the  highest  colored  goods  we  turn  out.     Preserve  this  card,  order  the 
color  you  want  by  number,  and  we  will  send  you  just  what  you  want. 
Yours,  truly, 

W.  J.  MOXLEY. 

Is  there  any  necessity  of  going  further  to  learn  of  the  reasons  why  the 
oleomargarine  makers  are  willing  to  spend  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
dollars  to  defeat  laws  forbidding  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine? 

If  Moxley  can  find  a  market  for  oleomargarine  without  color  at  one 
season,  why  not  at  another?  He  gives  the  whole  case  away  in  the  one 
statement,  that  "in  winter  butter  is  of  a  lighter  color  than  in  summer," 
and  offers  to  "color  to  suit"  the  shade  of  butter  at  any  season  of  the 
year  or  for  any  section. 

Has  it  ever  been  claimed  that  the  tastes  of  the  people  varied  with  the 
season?  Would  a  customer  who  knew  he  was  buying  oleomargarine 
say  in  December,  "  No,  we  don't  like  such  a  high  color  in  winter.  Please 
make  it  a  little  lighter? " 

No,  indeed.  Any  departure  from  the  color  of  butter  at  any  time  of 
year  might  excite  the  suspicion  that  he  was  not  getting  pure  butter. 
The  manufacturer  even  provides  for  the  chance  of  a  consumer  living  in 
a  section  where  butter  is  not  highly  colored  becoming  suspicious,  and 
advertise  to  color  it  "  to  suit  the  section." 

Butter  has  been  a  staple  article  of  food  for  more  than  4,000  years.  It 
is,  as  a  rule,  yellow  nine  months  of  the  year.  It  is  colored  in  winter  and 
fall  to  preserve  a  uniformity.  It  would  sell  just  as  well  as  near  white 
as  it  is  ever  made,  provided  it  could  be  kept  a  uniform  shade  through- 
out the  year.  Trade  in  all  commodities  requires  uniformity.  That  is 
the  most  exacting  requirement  of  the  butter  trade.  Conditions  can  be 
adjusted  to  fit  the  degree.  If  butter  were  not  colored  for  uniformity 
to  the  June  shade  in  order  to  make  a  uniform  color  it  would  have  to  be 
bleached  nine  months  in  the  year,  which  would  be  impracticable  or 
impossible. 

There  is  no  deception  in  coloring  butter.  It  is  not  colored  to  make  it 
look  like  anything  else.  The  color  doesn't  deceive  anybody  into  think- 
ing he  is  getting  a  better  article  than  he  receives.  Everybody  knows 
butter  is  colored,  as  they  know  candy  is  colored.  Some  say  the  highly 
colored  June  butter  is  richer  and  more  to  be  desired.  The  high  color, 
however,  is  not  indicative  of  quality.  The  season  alone  creates  that, 
new  grass  imparting  a  delicious  and  desirable  flavor  just  as  much  to 
the  light-colored  butter  as  to  the  highly  colored.  One  prominent  Sena- 
tor said,  in  the  course  of  a  hearing  in  Chicago  last  summer,  "But 

(•34) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  607 

you  color  your  butter  in  winter  to  make  it  loot  like  June  butter — 
that  which  is  rich  and  has  high  flavor."  "It  would  scarcely  be  good 
business  to  color  for  that  purpose,"  was  the  response  of  the  witness, 
"  because  if  the  buyer  thought  it  to  be  June  butter  offered  for  sale  in 
winter  he  would  want  to  buy  it  at  June  butter  prices,  which  are  from 
2  to  4  cents  a  pound  lower  in  winter  than  fresh  made  goods." 

So  it  will  be  seen  that  this  argument  of  endeavoring  to  deceive  peo- 
ple into  thinking  they  are  getting  June  butter  in  winter  isn't  very  good, 
logic. 

THE  LAW  OF  1886  WAS  NOT  A  REVENUE  MEASURE. 

Swift  &  Co.,  in  commenting  upon  the  amount  of  revenue  produced  by 
oleomargarine  since  the  present  law  went  into  effect,  in  1886,  say: 

You  will  note  the  fact  also  that  since  the  present  oleomargarine  law  took  effect 
it  has  turned  into  the  Treasury,  in  less  than  fifteen  years,  the  large  amount  of 
$15,942,101.43  taxes. 

We  are  painfully  aware  of  that  fact.  This  law  of  1886  was  enacted 
as  the  only  remedy  the  General  Government  could  afford  to  check  the 
enormous  frauds  being  practiced  in  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  at  that 
time.  The  tax  was  placed  at  2  cents  a  pound,  this  being  regarded 
to  be  about  the  figure  needed  to  raise  sufficient  revenue  to  enable  the 
Government  to  enforce  the  other  provisions  of  the  bill.  What  has 
been  the  result!  No  attention  whatever  has  been  paid  to  the  intent  of 
the  law.  Be  venue  collectors  have  been  satisfied  to  see  that  the  taxes 
were  paid.  It  has  not  been  possible  to  interest  them  to  any  extent 
whatever  in  the  enforcement  of  the  provision  requiring  the  branding 
of  packages  by  the  retailer,  which  was  the  entire  intent  of  the  law 
of  1886. 

The  internal-revenue  collector  of  a  certain  prominent  district  made 
the  statement  that  it  would  be  poor  policy  for  his  department  to  inter- 
fere with  the  volume  of  trade  in  a  revenue-producing  article  by  enforc- 
ing regulations  which  would  have  such  effect.  In  the  city  of  Chicago 
about  the  only  part  of  the  law  that  is  enforced  is  that  requiring  the 
payment  of  the  2-cent  tax  and  the  license  stamps.  No  attention  is 
paid  to  complaints  of  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  at  retail  not  properly 
branded.  These  complaints  have  been  made  and  ignored  dozens  of 
times,  and  what  is  said  of  Chicago  can,  we  are  informed  by  those  who 
have  investigated,  be  said  of  other  districts. 

FIGURES  USED  TO  FRIGHTEN  LIVE-STOCK  MEN. 

But  in  the  fifth  statement  Swift  &  Co.  play  their  strongest  card 
against  the  Grout  bill  and  10  cent  tax,  and  a  more  brazen  attempt  to 
mislead  Congress  has  probably  never  been  brought  to  the  surface. 
They  say: 

Fifth.  The  enactment  of  these  bills  would  seriously  affect  the  cattle  industry. 
The  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  has  created  a  demand  for  oleooil,  which  is  made 
from  the  choice  fats  from  the  beef,  and  is  worth  to-day  10  cents  per  pound.  If  these 
choice  fata  were  not  utilized  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  they  would  have 
to  be  sold  as  tallow,  which  is  worth  6  cents  per  pound.  A  steer  will  yield  50  pounds 
of  oleo  oil;  therefore,  should  the  oleomargarine  industry  be  destroyed  each  steer 
would  depreciate  in  value  $2.  The  same  is  true  of  the  hog.  Leaf  lard  (or  neutral) 
is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine.  Neutral  is  to-day  worth  8£  cents  per 
pound,  lard  is  worth  6  cents  per  pound;  a  hog  will  yield  about  8  pounds  of  neu- 
tral. If  thore  was  no  demand  for  neutral  as  an  oleomargarine  ingredient  it  would 
have  no  greater  value  than  lard;  hence  each  hog  would  be  worth  20  cents  less  than 
present  price. 

(*25) 


608  OLEOMAEGAEINB. 

For  the  year  ending  December  31,  1899,  there  were  1,702,572  cattle  slaughtered  at 
the  Union  Stock  Yards  in  Chicago;  at  $2  per  head  this  would  make  $3,405,144.  For 
the  same  period  there  were  7,032,430  hogs  slaughtered  at  the  Union  Stock  Yards  in 
Chicago ;  at  20  cents  per  head  this  would  make  $1,406,486.  Therefore,  should  Congress 
pass  a  law  which  would  destroy  the  oleomargarine  business  the  cattle  and  hog  rais- 
ers marketing  their  stock  in  Chicago  would  actually  lose  in  the  course  of  a  year 
$4,811,630  by  depreciation  in  value  of  stock,  and  this  will  apply  to  every  other 
slaughtering  point  in  the  United  States — Kansas  City,  Omaha,  St.  Louis,  etc. 

Let  us  analyze  this  statement.  It  can  be  done  in  two  ways.  First, 
let  us  look  at  the  live-stock  interests.  Cattle  were  slaughtered  as  fol- 
lows at  the  leading  centers  during  the  past  year: 

Chicago..  1,821,061 

Kansas  City 1,032,586 

Omaha 549,089 

St.  Louis 506,249 


Total 3,908,985 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  in  other  centers  combined  enough  more  cattle 
were  slaughtered  last  year  to  bring  the  total  number  up  to  5,000,000 
head. 

During  1899  there  were  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  manu- 
factured. Making  a  liberal  allowance,  one- third  of  this  product  was 
oleo  oil.  This  is  too  high  an  estimate,  but  we  can  afford  to  be  liberal. 
Therefore  in  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  there  was  used 
27,000,01)0  pounds  of  oleo  oil.  Eight  cents  a  pound  upon  the  average 
is  about  right  for  the  price  of  oleo  oil  for  the  year,  as  it  is  not  all  high 
grade,  nor  was  the  market  high  all  the  year.  This  would  make  the 
oleo  oil  going  into  the  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  worth 
$2,208,000.  This  would  mean  that  an  average  of  44  cents7  worth  of  <  leo 
oil  was  used  from  each  head  of  cattle  killed  in  the  country.  Granted, 
for  argument,  that  this  oleo  oil  could  find  no  other  market  than  to  the 
manufacturers  of  this  country  for  oleomargarine,  except  as  tallow,  which 
is  worth  a  little  over  half  the  price  of  oleo  oil.  In  that  case  the  44  cents7 
worth  of  oleo  oil  would  have  to  be  sold  at  22  cents  as  tallow,  which 
would  result  in  the  loss  of  22  cents  a  head  on  a  steer  worth  from  $30  to 
$60  or  $70,  which  is  figuring  a  little  finer  than  people  figure  in  business 
matters. 

But  let  us  bring  to  light  the  facts  which  Swift  &  Co.  endeavor  to 
hide  from  Congress.  They  endeavor  to  convey  the  impression  that  if 
they  are  not  permitted  to  imitate  butter  with  the  color  of  their  oleo- 
margarine the  entire  oleomargarine  industry  of  the  world  will  be 
wrecked.  In  no  other  way  can  they  justify  the  claim  of  a  loss  of  $2 
per  head  upon  cattle. 

But  here  are  the  facts.  It  has  been  shown  that  about  27,600,000 
pounds  of  oleo  oil  were  used  in  making  oleomargarine  in  this  country 
last  year.  This  is  but  a  small  percentage  of  the  oleo  oil  produced. 
The  Government  statistics  of  exports  for  the  year  1899  show  that  com- 
pared with  27,600,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil  used  at  home  there  were 
exported  142,000,00')  pounds,  largely  to  Rotterdam,  where  it  is  used. 
They  would  endeavor  to  lead  Congress  to  believe  that  any  act  affecting 
the  imitation-butter  business  in  the  United  States  would  bring  about 
the  destruction  of  the  export  trade  in  oleo  oil,  which  trade  could,  if 
necessary,  also  take  all  the  oil  used  in  oleomargarine  in  this  country. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  claim  regarding  the  threatened  depression  in 
the  price  of  hogs. 

But  let  us  view  this  question  in  another  light.  According  to  the 
stat  ment  of  Swift  &  Co.,  the  average  price  of  oleomargarine  is  about 

(*26) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  609 

10  cents  per  pound.    The  83,000,000  pounds  .made  last  year  would  be 
worth,  according  to  this,  $8,300,000. 

Now,  if  the  5,000,000  head  of  cattle  would  be  depreciated  $2  per  head 
by  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill,  the  loss  to  the  live-stock  man  would 
be,  according  to  their  claim,  $10,000,000.  Then  upon  the  conservative 
estimate  of  15,000,000  head  of  hogs  marketed  last  year,  upon  which  this 
"vicious  measure"  would  entail  a  loss  of  20  cents  per  head,  would  be 
an  additional  loss  of  $3,000,000.  This  makes  a  total  loss,  according  to 
their  statement,  of  $13,000,000  upon  a  business  aggregating  $8,300,000 
per  year.  And  this  is  not  taking  into  consideration  the  "loss"  claimed 
by  the  cotton-seed  oil  men,  who  sell  the  oleomargarine  people  in  this 
country  about  3,400,000  gallons  of  oil,  valued  at  about  $1,000,000,  com- 
pared with  the  40,230,784  gallons,  valued  at  $10,137,619,  which  they 
export,  in  addition  to  that  used  in  soap  making  and  as  salad  oil  in  the 
United  States. 

THE  COLORING  OF  OLEOMARGARINE  AND  BUTTER. 

Here  is  the  next  statement  of  Swift  &  Co. : 

Sixth.  The  question  of  color  is  urged  against  the  use  of  oleomargarine.  It  goes 
without  saying  that  we  have  the  right  to  make  our  goods  as  attractive  and  as  pleas- 
ing to  the  eye  and  as  desirable  to  the  purchaser  as  we  can,  provided  that  we  do 
nothing  to  injure  the  quality  of  the  goods.  The  same  color  is  used  in  coloring  oleo- 
margarine that  is  used  in  coloring  butter,  and  the  use  of  this  butter  color  (so  called) 
in  coloring  butter  is  just  as  much  a  deceit  and  a  fraud  upon  customers  as  is  its  use 
in  coloring  oleomargarine.  It  is  further  a  fact  that  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers 
were  the  first  to  see  the  advantage  of  having  a  uniform  color  in  their  goods  and  were 
the  first  to  use  butter  color  (so  called).  The  creameries  throughout  the  country 
were  quick  to  take  advantage  of  the  new  idea,  and  to-day  it  is  rare  to  see  butter  on 
the  market  which  is  not  colored  a  bright  yellow,  although  the  natural  color  of  but- 
ter ranges  all  the  way  from  white  for  the  ordinary  winter  butter  to  a  light  yellow 
for  summer  butter. 

The  above  is  certainly  a  bold  position  to  openly  assume  before  Con- 
gress. We  would  refer  Swift  &  Co.  to  the  noted  speech  made  by  Con- 
gressman Tayler,  of  Ohio,  upon  the  question  of  Brigham  H.  Eoberts's 
right  to  a  seat  in  Congress.  Mr.  Taylor  said: 

This  is  a  representative  Government;  it  springs  from  the  people,  from  the  people 
who  make  the  law,  and  their  representatives  are  such  because  they  are  believers  in 
the  law  and  subject  to  the  law.  Many  may  entertain  opinions  as  to  the  unwisdom 
of  certain  laws,  and  a  hope  that  these  may  be  erased  from  the  statute  books ;  but 
in  the  very  nature  of  things  they  can  not  stand  for  defiance  of  law.  And  as  they  can 
not  stand  for  defiance  of  any  law,  how  much  the  more  must  they  stand  as  respecters 
of  and  obedient  to  such  laws  as  have  proceeded  from  the  people,  at  the  people's 
initiative,  and  sustained  by  the  deliberate  and  intelligent  approval  of  substantially 
all  the  people. 

Swift  &  Co.  stand  for  defiance  not  only  of  the  laws  of  their  own  State, 
but  of  the  laws  of  more  than  two  thirds  of  the  States  of  the  United 
States.  They  come  before  Congress,  a  large  majority  of  which  repre- 
sent States  whose  laws  they  are  violating,  and  openly  say:  "It  goes 
without  saying  that  we  have  the  right  to  make  our  goods  as  attractive 
and  as  pleasing  to  the  purchaser  as  we  can,  provided  that  we  do  noth- 
ing to  injure  the  quality  of  the  goods." 

State  laws  are  as  naught.  The  opinions  of  our  most  learned  jurists 
are  not  worthy  of  consideration.  What  four- fifths  of  the  people 
through  their  legislatures  have  condemned,  in  the  estimation  of  Swift 
&  Co.,  "goes  without  saying." 

But  let  us  see  what  the  courts  say  about  this  right  which  Swift  & 
Co.  claim  "goes  without  saying." 

Tn  December,  1894,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  handed 
*  S.  Rep.  2043 39  (*27) 


610  OLEOM  AEG  AEINE. 

down  an  opinion  regarding  this  right  which  Swift  &  Co.  says  "goes 
without  saying."  It  was"  the  case  of  Plumley  v.  Massachusetts.  Plum- 
ley  had  been  convicted  under  the  Massachusetts  law  of  selling  a  com- 
pound known  as  oleomargarine,  colored  in  semblance  of  butter.  The 
matter  was  carried  to  the  supreme  court  of  the  State,  where  judgment 
was  affirmed;  it  was  then  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  The  defense  was  that  Plumley  was  held  under  a  statute  which 
was  unconstitutional  for  two  reasons. 

The  statute  in  that  case  prevented  the  sale  of  this  substance  in  imi- 
tation of  yellow  butter  produced  from  pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream 
of  the  same,  and  the  statute  contained  a  proviso  that  nothing  therein 
should  be  "construed  to  prohibit  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine in  a  separate  or  distinct  form  and  in  such  manner  as  will  advise 
the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  free  from  coloration  or  ingredients 
that  cause  it  to  look  like  butter."  The  court  held  that  a  conviction 
under  that  statute  for  having  sold  an  article  known  as  oleomargarine, 
not  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream,  but  manufactured  in 
imitation  of  yellow  butter,  produced  from  pure,  unadulterated  milk  or 
cream,  was  valid.  Attention  was  called  in  the  opinion  to  the  fact  that 
the  statute  did  not  prohibit  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  all  oleomarga- 
rine, but  only  such  as  was  colored  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  pro- 
duced from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  such  milk.  If  free  from 
coloration  or  ingredient  that  caused  it  to  look  like  butter,  the  right  to 
sell  it  in  a  separate  and  distinct  form  and  in  such  manner  as  would 
advise  the  customer  of  the  real  character  was  neither  restricted  nor 
prohibited.  The  court  held  that  under  the  statute  the  party  was  only 
forbidden  to  practice  in  such  matters  a  fraud  upon  the  general  public; 
that  the  statute  seeks  to  suppress  false  pretenses  and  to  promote  fair 
dealing  in  the  sale  of  an  article  of  food,  and  that  it  compels  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  for  what  it  really  is  by  preventing  its  sale  for  what  it  is 
not;  that  the  term  "commerce  among  the  States"  did  not  mean  a  rec- 
ognition of  a  right  to  practice  a  fraud  upon  the  public  in  the  sale  of  an 
article  even  if  it  had  become  the  subject  of  trade  in  different  parts  of 
the  country. 

Judge  Harlan,  in  delivering  this  opinion,  said: 

And  yet  it  is  supposed  the  owners  of  a  compound  which  has  been  put  in  a  condi- 
tion to  cheat  the  public  into  believing  it  is  a  particular  article  of  food  in  daily  use 
and  eagerly  sought  for  by  people  in  every  condition  of  life  are  protected  by  the  Con- 
stitution in  making  a  sale  of  it  against  the  will  of  the  States  in  which  it  is  offered 
for  sale  because  of  the  circumstance  that  it  is  in  an  original  package  and  has  become 
a  subject  of  ordinary  traffic.  We  are  unwilling  to  accept  this  view.  We  are  of  the 
opinion  that  it  is  within  the  power  of  a  State  to  exclude  from  its  markets  any  com- 
pound manufactured  in  another  State  which  has  been  artificially  colored  or  adulter- 
ated so  as  to  cause  it  to  look  like  an  article  of  food  in  general  use  and  the  sale  of 
which  may,  by  reason  of  such  coloration  or  adulteration,  cheat  the  general  public 
into  purchasing  that  which  they  may  not  intend  to  buy. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  does  not  secure  to  anyone  the  privilege  of 
defrauding  the  public.  The  deception  against  which  the  statute  of  Massachusetts 
is  aimed  is  an  offense  against  society.  The  States  are  as  competent  to  protect  their 
people  against  such  offenses  or  wrongs  as  they  are  to  protect  them  against  crimes 
or  wrongs  of  more  serious  character,  and  this  protection  may  be  given  without 
violating  any  right  secured  by  the  national  Constitution  and  without  infringing  the 
authority  of  the  General  Government.  A  State  enactment  forbidding  the  sale  ot 
deceitful  imitations  of  articles  of  food  in  general  use  among  the  people  does  not 
abridge  any  privilege  secured  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  nor  in  any  just  sense 
interfere  with  the  freedom  of  commerce  among  the  several  States. 

We  further  quote  from  numerous  authorities: 

It  has  been  uniformly  held  that  the  legislature,  in  the  exercise  of  its  police  pow- 
ers for  the  protection  of  the  general  welfare  of  the  community  and  the  promotion  of 
the  public  health,  has  the  right  to  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  any  article 

(*28) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  611 

of  food  in  imitation  or  semblance  of  another  well-known  article  of  food  in  a  form 
which  is  calculated  or  likely  to  deceive  the  buyer  or  the  consumer,  and  in  any  sub- 
stitutes for  butter,  where  the  act  is  aimed  at  a  designed  and  intentional  imitation  of 
butter  in  the  manufacture  of  the  new  product  and  not  at  a  resemblance  of  qualities 
inherent  in  the  articles  themselves  and  common  to  both.  (Plumley  v.  Massachusetts, 
155  U.  S.,  461;  Commonwealth  v.  Plumley,  163  Mass.,  169;  VVaterbury  v.  Newton,  50 
N.J.  Law,  534;  People  v.  Aarensburg,  105  N.Y.,123;  McAllister  v.  State,  72  Mo.,  390; 
State  v.  Addington,  77  Mo.,  110;  Commonwealth  v.  Schollenberger,  155  Pa.,  201;  State 
v.  Marshall,  64  N.  H.,  549 ;  Weilmon  v.  State,  56  N.  \V.  Rep.,  688  Minn. ;  Cook  v.  State, 
20  Southern  Rep., 566  Ala.) 

Swift  &  Co.  and  their  associates  have  no  respect  or  regard  for  State 
laws.  They  absolutely  hold  the  lower  courts  of  the  various  States  in 
contempt.  The  adverse  decisions  of  the  State  supreme  courts  do  not 
trouble  them  one  iota,  and  five  years  after  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  told  them  they  had  no  legal  right  to  sell  oleomargarine 
colored  in  semblance  of  butter  in  Massachusetts,  in  support  of  the 
State  supreme  court,  we  find  them  bolstering  up  108  dealers,  who  dis- 
posed of  2,083,889  pounds  of  oleomargarine  in  twelve  months,  which 
they  do  not  deny  is  sold  contrary  to  the  State  laws  and  the  rulings  of 
the  supreme  courts  of  the  State  and  United  States. 

What  kind  of  a  standing  is  this  to  be  possessed  by  manufacturers 
before  a  body  of  representatives  of  the  32  States  which  have  laws 
copied  after  that  of  Massachusetts? 

The  claim  of  priority  in  the  use  of  yellow  color  is  so  absurdly  ridic- 
ulous as  to  be  unworthy  of  notice.  Under  a  prior  heading  the  object 
and  original  reason  for  coloring  oleomargarine  has  been  disclosed  by 
oue  of  the  Chicago  manufacturers. 

FRAUDULENT  SALE  OF  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Swift  &  Co.  then  take  up  the  question  of  fraud  in  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine, and  upon  this  question  have  to  say: 

Seventh.  We  wouJd  further  state,  in  reference  to  the  claim  that  it  is  a  fraud  upon 
the  sale  of  butter,  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to-day,  under  the  internal-revenue 
Jaws  and  regulations,  to  sell  oleomargarine  as  butter  to  customers  of  ordinary  intel- 
ligence, as  all  oleomargarine  sold  is  required  to  be  branded  in  large  letters  and  there 
are  stringent  penalties  for  the  failure  to  comply  therewith. 

No  law  can  make  more  stringent  requirements  to  protect  customers  than  the  pres- 
ent laws,  and  the  fact  that  the  output  is  yearly  increasing  shows  that  there  is  a  demand 
for  oleomargarine  as  such  in  spite  of  all  hostile  agitation  and  legislation.  That  there 
is  fraud  sometimes  practiced  in  the  retail  sale  of  the  product  is  quite  possible,  and 
laws  have  been  and  should  be  enacted  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  such  fraud,  but 
all  that  is  no  reason  for  stamping  out  the  industry  of  manufacturing  and  selling 
oleomargarine. 

If  it  is  claimed  that  an  increase  of  the  tax  would  not  stamp  out  the  industry,  it  is 
at  least  certain  that  it  would  cause  an  increase  in  the  illegal  sale  of  the  article,  and 
therefore  would  fail  of  its  object  in  protecting  customers  from  fraud.  The  present 
tax  of  2  cents  a  pound  on  the  article  which  sells  at  an  average  of  10  cents  a  pound 
is  excessive,  being  20  per  cent  of  the  selling  price,  and  it  is  undoubtedly  a  fact  that 
a  large  proportion  of  the  fraud  now  claimed  is  due  to  this  excessive  tax,  for  it  is  well 
known,  and  is  vouched  for  by  the  experience  of  the  internal-revenue  department  in 
its  collections  of  revenue  on  tobaccos  and  liquors,  that  taxes  and  violations  of  rev- 
enue laws  increase  and  decrease  in  the  same  proportion. 

Now,  let  us  see  about  that.  It  is  true  the  internal-revenue  laws  and 
regulations  are  strict  with  regard  to  the  stamping  of  oleomargarine  by 
the  manufacturer  and  retailer.  However,  in  all  the  fourteen  years 
which  this  law  has  been  in  effect  the  Government  has  never  imprisoned 
but  two  offenders  for  failure  to  brand  or  for  removing  brands,  and  the 
internal-revenue  department  was  very  much  against  bringing  this  case 
to  trial  and  making  an  example  of  these  men,  who  had  been  for  years 
persistent  swindlers.  It  was  only  through  the  greatest  efforts  of  the 

(*29) 


612  OLEOMABGARINI 

Secretary  of  Agriculture  and  an  appeal  to  the  Attorney-General  to 
refuse  to  compromise  that  Wilkins  and  Butler  were  sentenced  to  prison 
a  few  months  ago  for  removing  brands  from  oleomargarine  packages, 
and  they  had  no  more  than  gotten  well  settled  in  prison  than  gigantic 
frauds  of  a  similar  nature  came  to  light  from  Chicago. 

The  Wilkins  case  gives  a  clear  idea  of  the  enormous  frauds  that  are 
being  practiced  in  the  oleomargarine  traffic,  which  do  not  affect  the 
revenue,  because  the  goods  used  for  this  fraudulent  business  have 
all  paid  the  2-cent  tax. 

Attorney-General  Griggs's  statement  of  facts  and  refusal  to  recom- 
mend the  pardon  of  Wilkins  and  Butler  will  give  the  reader  a  clear 
idea  of  the  character  of  fraud  which  is  being  practiced,  the  lamentable 
phase  of  the  question  being  the  fact  that  this  case  which  came  to  light 
is  only  one  of  the  hundreds  of  swindles  which  are  being  carried  on  in 
a  large  way  and  of  the  thousands  being  practiced  upon  consumers  in 
all  portions  of  the  country. 

The  Attorney  General  wrote  to  President  McKinley  as  follows: 

The  petitioners,  Joseph  Wilkins  and  Howard  Butler,  were  convicted  of  fraudu- 
lently removing  labels  from  packages  containing  oleomargarine  in  violation  of  the 
act  of  August  2, 1886,  and  were  sentenced  on  March  17, 1898,  as  to  Wilkins,  to  impris- 
onment for  six  months  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  $1,500  and  costs,  and,  as  to  Butler,  to 
imprisonment  for  four  months  and  to  pay  a  tine  of  $500  and  costs. 

The  judgment  of  the  district  court  was  subsequently  affirmed  in  the  circuit  court 
of  appeals,  to  which  it  was  taken  by  the  defendants,  and  an  application  subse- 
quently made  to  the  Supreme  Court  for  a  writ  of  certiorari  was  denied.  Thereupon, 
in  November  last,  the  petitioners  were  committed  to  serve  their  sentences  of  impris- 
onment. 

The  grounds  of  the  application  for  a  pardon  as  to  Joseph  Wilkins  are,  that  he  has 
a  wife  and  child,  and  that  each  of  the  prisoners  is  of  good  reputation  and  standing, 
and  has  never  been  convicted  of  any  other  crime.  They  request,  in  view  of  the 
humiliation  and  disgrace  already  suffered  by  them,  as  well  as  of  the  heavy  fines 
imposed,  and  in  view  of  their  good  reputation  and  standing  in  the  community,  and 
of  the  fact  that  no  revenue  has  been  lost  to  the  Government,  that  that  portion  of 
the  sentence  providing  for  imprisonment  be  remitted. 

The  records  of  the  office  of  internal  revenue  show  that  Wilkins  has  been  a  persist- 
ent violator  of  the  oleomargarine  laws,  and  that  prior  to  the  present  prosecution 
he  has  escaped  punishment  by  means  of  money  payments  in  compromise.  The 
records  show  that  on  December  14,  1893,  Wilkins  filed  a  proposition  to  pay  $2,100 
and  costs  in  compromise  of  all  liabilities,  civil  and  criminal,  incurred  in  the  first 
district  of  Illinois  for  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter,  and  by  violating  various  sec- 
tions of  the  law  relating  to  wholesale  dealers  in  oleomargarine.  This  offer  was 
accepted  December  26,  1893. 

April  4,  1895,  less  than  a  year  and  a  half  after  the  last  settlement,  Wilkins  again 
filed  an  offer  of  compromise,  agreeing  to  pay  $2,000  in  settlement  of  his  liabilities  for 
alleged  frauds  under  the  oleomargarine  law  committed  in  connection  with  a  firm  in 
West  Virginia.  This  offer  was  also  accepted. 

A  year  later,  April  2,  1896,  Wilkins  was  indicted  with  another  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  for  selling  unstamped  oleomargarine.  On  June  20,  1896,  he  offered  to  pay 
$1,000  in  compromise,  but  this  being  rejected  the  case  went  to  trial  and  the  accused 
was  acquitted.  There  are  three  separate  indictments  against  him  pending  now  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  for  selling  oleomargarine  in  unstamped  packages.  These 
indictments  were  found  January  4,  1897. 

The  offense  of  which  the  petitioners  are  now  convicted  was  committed  December 
20, 1896,  two  days  after  the  verdict  of  acquittal  in  the  trial  in  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia. The  petitioners  were  discovered  by  a  revenue  agent  in  the  act  of  scraping  off 
the  stamps,  marks,  and  brands  from  packages  of  oleomargarine. 

In  connection  with  the  present  case,  an  offer  to  pay  $8,000  and  costs  in  compromise 
was  made,  but  rejected  February  23, 1898,  and  thereupon  the  case  went  to  trial  with 
the  result  above  stated. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  business  in  which  Wilkins  was  engaged  must  have  been  one 
of  great  profit,  otherwise  he  could  not  have  afforded  to  make  the  very  large  pay- 
ments in  compromise  which  he  did  make  or  offered  to  make. 

That  he  was  aware  of  the  fraudulent  and  dishonorable  nature  of  the  business  in 
which  he  was  persistently  engaged  appears  from  his  own  statement  made  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  October  31,  1893,  from  which  I 
quote  the  following : 

(*30) 


OLEOMAKG  AKLNE,  613 

"Having  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  butterine  business,  and  knowing  the  pos- 
sibilities of  that  business  if  worked  in  certain  directions  and  ways,  I  determined  to 
try  it,  having  the  desire  to  make  large  gains  quick.  *  *  *  After  I  found  that 
some  of  my  goods  had  been  seized  in  Cincinnati  I  settled  up  my  business  as  quickly 
as  possible  and  did  not  ship  any  more.  I  came  to  you  voluntarily,  and  I  sincerely 
trust  you  will  deal  with  me  as  leniently  as  the  law  will  allow  you,  promising  you 
faithfully  that  no  such  thing  as  this  will  ever  occur  again  with  me,  and,  if  I  am 
allowed  to  make  a  request,  I  ask  that  I  be  allowed  to  settle  without  having  the 
Western  houses  know  anything  of  my  doings,  because  I  know  it  was  very  dishonor- 
able in  me  to  do  as  1  have  done,  and  if  I  am  allowed  to  go  along  in  life  without  the 
public  knowing  of  my  misdeeds,  then  I  feel  sure  that  I  can  make  a  new  start  in 
some  way  that  is  entirely  honorable.  I  realize  full  well  that  I  could  have  in  some 
way  kept  away  from  the  hands  of  the  law,  but  to  do  this  would  mean  the  staying 
away  from  home  and  relatives,  and,  above  all,  the  constant  strain  on  my  mind,  and 
with  the  sense  that  I  had  done  a  great  wrong,  I  could  not  stand  it.  Trusting  that 
you  will  allow  me  to  settle  immediately,  which  will  allow  me  to  drift  back  into  the 
channels  of  straight,  legitimate  business  soon,  I  remain." 

Notwithstanding  that  the  authorities  were  induced  to  settle  with  him  upon  his 
promise  of  abstention  in  the  future  from  similar  violations  of  the  law,  it  appears 
that  he  straightway  resumed  his  operations,  undoubtedly  taking  courage  from  the 
success  with  which  he  had  compromised  the  first  offenses  in  which  he  had  been 
discovered. 

It  is  absolutely  clear  that  for  such  a  persistent  violator  of  the  law  something  more 
than  a  money  penalty  was  essential.  The  sentence  of  imprisonment  imposed  in  this 
case  was  peremptorily  required  by  the  circumstances.  Nor  can  I  say  that  the  sentence 
was  anything  but  moderate.  It  is  less  than  the  average  sentence  imposed  upon  per- 
sistent violators  of  the  internal-revenue  laws  relating  to  the  distillation  of  spirits, 
and  much  less  than  the  ordinary  sentences  imposed  for  violation  of  the  laws  against 
the  use  of  the  mails  for  fraudulent  purposes. 

Not  only  is  the  dignity  of  the  law  to  be  upheld  against  such  persistent  violations, 
but  the  public  is  entitled  to  be  protected  by  the  salutary  influence  of  stern  punish- 
ment against  fraud  and  deception,  such  as  were  practiced  in  this  case,  by  means  of 
which  the  petitioners  were  enabled  to  impose  upon  innocent  purchasers  as  genuine 
butter  a  counterfeit  article,  which,  if  sold  for  what  it  really  was,  would  have  brought 
very  much  less  in  the  open  market. 

I  do  not  think  that  the  sentences  should  be  interfered  with. 

Who  is  this  man  Wilkins? 

As  soon  as  detected  in  the  act  of  removing  oleomargarine  marks  at 
Philadelphia,  so  that  his  Washington  business  was  no  longer  profitable, 
being  indicted  by  the  Federal  grand  jury,  Wilkins  was  brought  to  Chi- 
cago by  Messrs.  Braun  &  Fitts,  the  largest  manufacturers  of  oleomar- 
garine in  the  country,  and  given  the  responsible  position  of  directing 
the  salesmen,  which  class  have  for  years  coached  retailers  in  the  art  of 
swindling  the  public. 

Wilkins  held  this  position  as  confidential  man  with  Braun  &  Fitts 
during  the  time  his  case  was  being  fought  in  court  and  the  effort  being 
made  to  pardon  him,  and  went  directly  from  their  employ  to  prison  at 
Philadelphia. 

During  the  time  when  Wilkins's  pardon  was  being  most  actively 
sought  by  the  influence  of  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  two  other 
swindles  of  even  as  great  magnitude  and  of  the  same  character  were 
unearthed,  not,  however,  by  the  internal-revenue  department,  but  by 
the  agricultural  department  of  New  York. 

These  swindles  were  gigantic  in  their  proportions.  The  details  were 
excellently  set  forth  in  the  Times-Herald,  of  Chicago,  in  its  issue  of 
Sunday,  February  11.  The  Times-Herald's  account  of  this  swindle 
follows  : 

SEEK  FRAUD  IN  "OLEO"— SUSPICIOUS  OF  PRIME  BUTTER— REVENUE  AGENTS 
CLAIM  TO  HAVE  UNEARTHED  A  SWINDLE  ON  THE  GOVERNMENT-SHIPMENTS 
SEIZED  AND  ARRESTS  MADE— MORE  TO  FOLLOW. 

Government  officials  from  three  States  are  investigating  what  they  believe  to  be 
the  largest  oleomargarine  fraud  in  the  history  of  the  local  internal-revenue  depart- 
ment. The  work  of  the  officers  has  resulted  in  the  arrest  of  John  F.  Rooney,  who 

(*31) 


614  OLEOMARGARINE. 

has  had  a  preliminary  hearing  before  Commissioner  Mason  and  who  is  now  on  bonds 
of  $2,500. 

Rooney  is  charged  with  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter.  The  business  was  con- 
ducted in  the  names  of  the  Aurora  Produce  Company  and  the  Elgin  Produce  Com- 
pany. Checks  produced  in  evidence  upon  the  preliminary  hearing  tend  to  show  that 
Rooney  and  his  associates  bought  as  high  as  $1,000  worth  of  the  product  daily  and 
shipped  it  to  customers  in  several  States  who  had  purchased  it  in  the  belief  that  it 
was  high-grade  butter.  It  is  charged  that  in  the  three  or  four  months  that  Rooney 
has  been  operating  he  has  disposed  of  between  $80,000  and  $124,000  worth  of  oleo- 
margarine, upon  which  he  made  at  least  40  cents  on  the  dollar.  Rooney's  arrest 
occurred  nearly  three  weeks  ago  at  the  Ceylon  and  Japan  Tea  Company's  plat  e, 
700  West  Forty-seventh  street. 

REVENUE    AGENT   AT   WORK. 

Since  Rooney's  arrest  several  of  the  cleverest  special  agents  in  the  employ  of  the 
Government  have  been  further  investigating  in  the  belief  that  certain  manufacturers 
of  oleomargarine  were  back  of  Rooney.  It  is  also  believed  that  had  the  scheme 
proved  safe  the  fraudulent  dealings  would  have  been  increased  to  a  point  limited 
only  by  the  ability  to  get  customers. 

Last  November  the  Agricultural  Department  learned  that  large  quantities  of  suspi- 
cious butter  were  being  shipped  into  eastern  New  York,  and  W.  H.  Butcher,  of  Troy, 
was  detailed  to  look  the  matter  up.  On  November  27  a  consignment  of  623  tubs 
was  found  in  J.  B.  Wattles's  store  in  Buffalo.  Samples  were  taken  and  the  consign- 
ment allowed  to  go.  Agents  followed  it  to  Chicago,  where  the  W  abash  officials  were 
told  that  the  shipment  here  was  a  mistake,  and  that  the  stuff  should  have  been  sent 
to  Liverpool.  It  was  reshipped  and  the  Government  agents  seized  it  in  Detroit. 
This  lot  is  said  to  have  been  sold  by  Edward  Marhoffer,  of  the  Elgin  Produce  Com- 
pany, 6242  Halsted  street.  O.  S.  Martin,  special  agent  of  the  internal-revenue  depart- 
ment for  Indiana,  was  sent  to  Chicago  and  found  that  large  quantities  of  oleomar- 
garine had  been  shipped  to  John  Schmitz,  of  Milwaukee.  The  latter  told  the  agent 
that  a  man  representing  the  Aurora  Produce  Company  had  called  to  see  him  and  had 
said  that  his  concern  had  a  lot  of  high-grade  butter  which  they  could  sell  at  less 
than  prevailing  market  prices.  Schmitz  had  at  various  times  purchased  several 
hundred  dollars' worth  from  the  concern  in  the. belief  that  he  was  buying  good 
creamery  butter. 

SCHMITZ  PAYS  HIS  LICENSE. 

Schmitz  was  a  witness  before  the  commissioner  and  has  since  paid  the  Government 
$480,  which  is  required  for  a  wholesale  oleomargarine  license.  The  fact  that  lie  did 
not  know  he  was  selling  oleomargarine  did  not  cut  any  figure  with  his  being  liable 
for  the  license  money.  The  department  here  has  a  list  of  forty  or  fifty  dealers  who 
will  have  to  pay  $48  for  a  retail  license  for  having  bought  "prime  butter"  of  the 
concern. 

Agent  Martin  went  to  Aurora  after  seeing  Schmitz  and  began  looking  for  the  Aurora 
Produce  Company.  He  learned  that  a  man  named  Kooney  had  rented  a  box  at  the 
post-office  with  instructions  to  have  placed  in  it  all  his  mail  and  that  addressed  to 
the  Aurora  Produce  Company.  Later  he  had  given  up  the  box  and  left  instructions 
to  have  his  mail  forwarded  to  196  La  Salle  street.  At  this  place  Attorney  Maurice 
Langhouse  told  the  officer  that  Rooney  had  asked  him  to  permit  his  mail  to  come 
there,  and  had  paid  him  $10.  Every  day  a  boy  came  in,  and,  placing  the  mail  in 
another  envelope,  forwarded  it  to  Rooney  at  700  West  Forty-seventh  street. 

The  agent's  next  move  was  to  rent  a  room  opposite  the  tea  company's  store.  He 
soon  discovered  that  wagons  from  Braun  &  Fitts,  oleomargarine  manufacturers, 
made  almost  daily  deliveries  of  oleomargarine  at  the  store.  There  the  stamps  would 
be  removed  and  Expressman  J.  W.  Foley  would  take  the  stuff  to  various  freight 
offices  for  shipment. 

SEIZURES   AND  ARRESTS. 

When  the  evidence  was  conclusive,  seizures  were  made  and  a  warrant  sworn  out 
for  Rooney's  arrest.  It  was  learned  that  his  brother,  Elmer  K.  Rooney,  was  in  the 
deal,  and  a  telegram  was  sent  to  Joliet,  where  he  happened  to  be  selling  "  butter." 
to  cause  his  arrest.  Some  one  gave  him  timely  warning  and  he  fled.  It  is  said  that 
Edward  Marhoffer,  George  E.  Brannen,  and  a  man  named  Casey  have  also  disap- 
peared. 

In  connection  with  Rooney  the  officers  arrested  Patrick  F.  Butler,  who  worked  at 
the  Forty-seventh  street  place.  His  arrest  was  due  to  the  fact  that  all  checks  in 
payment  for  the  oleomargarine  were  made  out  to  Walter  F.  Butler,  and  a  bank  clerk 
identified  Patrick  F.  Butler  as  the  mau  who  drew  the  money  on  them.  The  evidence 
was  insufficient  to  connect  Butler  with  the  fraud,  and  he  was  discharged. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  6 1 5 

The  carload  of  oleomargarine  seized  at  Detroit  is  valued  at  $5,000,  and  would 
indicate  that  the  fraudulent  dealings  were  even  more  extensive  than  appears  from 
the  evidence  attained  thus  far.  It  is  said  that  the  local  department  is  preparing  to 
make  other  arrests  in  a  few  days,  although  the  warrants  have  not  heeu  sworn  out. 
W.  J.  Moxley,  who  sold  Rooney  small  amounts  of  oleomargarine;  John  Dadie,  and 
former  Mayor  John  P.  Hopkins  went  on  Kooney's  hond.  Officers  who  have  investi- 
gated the  Rooneys'  history  he  fore  the  time  they  came  to  Chicago  claim  that  they 
were  supplied  with  large  capital  helbre  engaging  in  the  sale  of  "prime  butter." 
When  an  attempt  was  made  to  gain  possession  of  the  hooks  of  the  Aurora  Produce 
Company,  it  was  learned  that  Roouey  and  another  man  had  burned  them  in  the 
kitchen  stove. 

There  were  a  number  of  very  peculiar  things  about  these  cases,  one 
of  which  was  the  ability  of  these  adventurers,  with  no  known  financial 
responsibility,  to  obtain  credit  for  such  large  amount.  Another  was  the 
fact  that  the  salesman  who  went  into  New  York  and  sold  tbe  "butter" 
proved  to  be  a  traveling  salesman  for  one  of  these  Chicago  oleomarga- 
rine manufacturers,  and  still  another  peculiar  thing  was  that  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  firms  of  Braun  &  Fitts  and  W.  J.  Moxley,  the 
Chicago  manufacturers  who  sold  this  oleomargarine  to  these  swindlers, 
appeared  before  Commissioner  Mason  and  either  went  bail  for  these 
men  or  secured  acceptable  bondsmen  with  their  guarantee. 

When  the  Senate  Committee  on  Manufactures  was  in  Chicago  investi- 
gating the  adulteration  of  foods,  the  condition  existing  in  the  traffic  in 
oleomargarine  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  Senators  Mason  and 
Harris. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  investigation  of  the  subject  of  oleomargarine, 
Senator  Mason  is  quoted  by  the  Times-Herald  of  Thursday,  May  11,  as 
follows: 

At  the  close  of  the  session  Senator  Mason  said:  "We  have  at  least  developed  this 
point  to-day,  that  although  oleomargarine  pays  the  tax  it  is  being  sold  generally  as 
pure  butter." 

The  Chicago  Tribune,  of  the  same  day,  said : 

The  committee  devoted  the  forenoon  session  to  the  subject  of  oleomargarine,  and 
brought  out  the  fact  that  oleomargarine  is  sold  in  the  city  every  day  for  pure  butter 
in  violation  of  the  national  internal-revenue  and  the  State  laws.  Four  dealers  in 
this  article  gave  evidence.  Packages  of  oleomargarine  purchased  the  day  before  and 
submitted  to  the  committee  by  C.  Y.  Knight,  who  had  bought  them  for  creamery 
butter,  was  examined.  They  did  not  bear  the  required  stamp  "Oleomargarine"  on 
the  outside,  but  the  word  appeared  on  wrappers  ingeniously  folded,  so  that  it  was 
entirely  hidden  from  view  until  the  packages  were  opened. 

The  Chicago  Democrat  said  of  this  hearing,  on  May  10: 

Practical  violation  of  the  oleomargarine  law  is  admitted  by  Chicago  dealers.  Such 
fraud,  they  say,  is  necessitated  by  the  aristocratic  purchasers. 

This  evidence  was  brought  out  by  the  secretary  of  the  National  Dairy 
Union,  who,  in  the  few  blocks  between  his  office  and  the  hotel  where  the 
investigation  was  being  conducted,  purchased  four  packages  of  what 
was  given  him  in  response  to  his  call  for  creamery  butter.  These  pack- 
ages were  purchased  at  random  at  stores  similar  to  which  there  are 
hundreds  in  Chicago.  One  dealer,  J.  F.  Somes,  of  the  Ohio  Butter 
Company,  which  never  sells  a  pound  of  butter,  testified  as  follows: 

[From  the  Official  Record.] 

•James  P.  Somes,  being  first  duly  sworn,  testified  as  follows: 

Examination  by  the  CHAIRMAN: 
Q.  What  is  your  namef 
A.  James  F.  Somes. 
Q.  What  is  your  business? 
A.  I  am  selling  butter,  eggs,  and  cheese. 

(*33) 


616  OLEOMAKGAKINE. 

Q.  Where  is  yonr  place  of  business? — A.  No.  44  Fifth  avenne. 

Q.  Do  you  sell  oleomargarine? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  i'amiliar  with  the  law  in  regard  to  the  sale  of  it? — A.  Why,  somewhat. 

Q.  Mr.  Somes,  I  show  you  an  exhibit,  which  is  designated  "No.  4."  Do  you  rec- 
ognize it  as  from  your  place  [handing  same  to  witness]  f — A.  We  sell  something 
of  that  kind,  similar  to  it. 

Q.  Is  your  name  on  the  paper? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  guess  so.  [The  witness  examined 
the  wrapper.]  Yes,  sir.  Not  my  name;  it  is  the  name  of  the  Ohio  Butter  Company. 

Q.  You  represent  that  company  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  put  this  package  up  yourself,  yesterday? — A.  1  don't  know.  I  put  up 
one  or  two  packages  of  the  kind  yesterday.  I  may  have  done  so.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  there  is  in  this? — A.  It  is  supposed  to  be  oleomargarine  or 
butterine. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  was  called  for  when  that  was  furnished? — A.  No;  I  do 
not.  I  would  say  in  that  connection  that  the  majority  of  people  come  in  and  want 
oleomargarine  or  butterine.  They  do  not  ask  for  it.  They  say,  "Give  me  some 
butter,"  and  they  know  what  they  are  getting,  most  of  them,  when  they  are  getting 
this  butterine. 

Q.  What  is  the  price  of  this  butterine? — A.  Butterine  runs  from  15  to  18  cents. 

Q.  Then  if  a  man  says  he  wants  some  butter,  you  hand  him  out  oleomargarine? — 
A.  Not  always ;  no,  sir.  We  try  to  do  a  fair  business,  and  to  do  an  honorable  business. 

Q.  WThat  we  want  in  this  connection,  Mr.  Somes,  is  to  find  out — we  are  investigating 
the  question  of  the  adulteration  of  food  products  and  how  they  are  circulated.  We 
are  not  seeking  to  incriminate  you  or  anybody  else. — A.  I  would  say  this — that  I 
think  the  majority  of  my  customers  understand  that  they  are  buying  butterine  or 
oleomargarine.  For  a  long  time  I  stamped  my  packages  all  on  the  outside,  and  they 
would  come  and  say,  "  What  is  this?  I  don't  want  this.  Give  me  another  wrapper." 
They  knew  what  they  were  buying.  They  did  not  want  to  carry  it  along  the  street 
with  a  sign  on,  and  to  accommodate  them  I  had  to  do  it,  and  to  wrap  another  wrap- 
per around  them.  And  then  the  butterine  people,  or  the  agents  of  the  butterine 
people,  advised  me  that  it  was  not  necessary;  that  if  I  stamped  my  paper,  that  was 
all  that  was  required.  And  I  have  always  tried  to  stamp  my  paper  properly,  and  to 
see  that  it  was  properly  stamped.  There  was  no  intention  on  my  part  to  deceive 
anybody.  The  majority  of  the  people  want  butterine,  and  they  don't  want  a  sign 
on  it,  so  that  everybody  knows  that  they  are  buying  butterine.  People  are  fussy 
about  such  things.  And  I  think  the  reason  they  buy  it  is  because  it  is  the  only 
thing  they  'can  get  that  is  sweet  and  good. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  excuse  you. 

The  package  purchased  from  Mr.  Somes  was  purchased  for  creamery 
butter.  A  few  months  after  this,  finding  him  continuing  this  practice,  he 
was  arrested  and  plead  guilty  under  the  State  law  for  selling  oleomar- 
garine for  butter.  He  paid  a  fine  of  $25  and  costs,  the  Chicago  manu- 
facturers refusing  in  this  case  to  come  to  his  rescue,  because  he  purchased 
his  oleomargarine  in  Ohio.  Then  they  im  mediately  circulated  the  report 
that  only  dealers  who  bought  goods  of  the  Chicago  trust  would  be  pro- 
tected. But  these  matters  will  be  treated  further  along.  This,  how- 
ever, was  the  only  fine  imposed  in  Chicago  in  ten  years  for  this  fraud, 
so  far  as  is  known,  under  the  State  law. 

William  Broadwell,  claiming  to  be  the  largest  retail  dealer  in  oleo- 
margarine in  Chicago,  was  also  called  before  the  committee  and  con- 
fronted with  a  package  that  was  bought  at  his  place  for  butter  that 
morning,  but  inside  of  the  wrapper  of  which  was  found,  ingeniously 
turned  under  and  concealed,  the  Government  stamp. 

Following  is  an  extract  from  his  evidence,  as  brought  out  by  Senator 
Harris : 

By  Senator  HARRIS  : 

Q.  You  think  generally  in  the  trade  there  is  a  disposition  to  sell  the  oleomargarine 
on  its  merits? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  a  man  don't  have  a  particle  of  trouble. 

Q.  Without  attempting  to  conceal  its  true  character,  or  sell  it  as  butter?— A.  Don't 
have  to,  at  all;  but  there  is  a  class  of  people  that  come  into  my  store,  who  are  up  in 
the  world  and  who  have  got  lots  of  money,  and  they  come  in  and  call  for  a  pail  of  but- 
ter, the  same  as  they  had  before.  They  would  not  come  in  and  ask  outright  for  oleo. 

Q.  If  it  has  the  merit  that  you  claim  for  it,  why  should  you  people  object  to  say- 
ing "oleomargarine?"— A.  They  don't  want  the  man  that  is  next  to  them  to  know 
that  they  are  using  oleomargarine. 

(*34) 


OLEOMABGARINE.  617 

Q.  They  think  there  is  some  social  degradation  in  it? — A.  I  should  say  there  was. 
If  you  only  knew  that  much  about  the  class  of  people  that  buy  that  in  my  store, 
you  would  almost  fall  dead,  as  true  as  you  are  living. 

Q.  I  don't  see  anything  humiliating  or  embarrassing  in  the  purchase  of  an  article 
which  is  good,  and  satisfactory  to  the  taste,  and  which  will  retain  its  good  qualities. 
Of  course,  I  am  a  mere  countryman,  but  I  don't  see  why  a  man  should  not  come  in 
and  say,  "I  want  some  oleomargarine,  because  it  suits  my  palate,  and  because  it  will 
keep  longer  than  butter." — A.  Yes;  but  they  don't  want  to  let  anybody  else  know 
anything  about  it,  and  they  will  come  in  and  call  me  off  to  one  side  and  whisper  to 
me,  "Can't  you  make  it  ten  cents  cheaper  this  time?"  You'd  be  surprised,  I  tell 
you.  I  don't  want  to  call  any  names,  but  I  tell  you  it  is  dreadful.  Then  do  you 
think  they  don't  know  what  they  are  buying?  And  then  they  ask  me  about  the 
goods  I  handle,  that  I  shall  see  that  they  don't  get  Swift's  or  Armour's.  I  tell  them 
I  handle  Moxley's  and  Braun  &  Fitts's.  All  right,  then,  so  long  as  it  is  theirs. 

Q.  There  are  different  grades,  even  in  the  nobility  of  oleomargarine? — A.  That  is 
what  there  is. 

Q.  Some  is  good,  and  some  is  better? — A.  There  is  some  that  I  would  not  handle 
at  all.  It  might  be  all  right,  but  in  my  opinion  it  is  not. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  makes  the  difference? — A.  Well,  of  course,  there  is  a  certain 
kind  of  cream  and  butter  that  is  put  into  the  higher  grades  that  makes  it  sweeter 
and  nicer,  and  a  better  smell  and  taste  to  it. 

Q.  Would  not  that  have  a  tendency  to  make  it  deteriorate,  the  more  butter  that 
wan  in  it?— A.  There  is  not  enough  butter  put  in  it  to  turn  it.  There  are  other 
arwcles  put  with  it  to  keep  it. 

Q.  It  does  not  get  so  good  as  to  be  hurt  by  it? — A.  It  is  just  like  a  man  making 
coffee — rubs  the  coffee  can  up  against  the  grounds,  and  that  is  as  near  as  the  coffee 
gets  to  it. 

Q.  You  say  that  this  mixture  is  what  makes  the  higher  grades  of  oleomargarine? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  it  gives  it  a  nicer,  sweeter  taste,  and  a  nicer  flavor. 

Q.  Makes  it  better?— A.  Makes  it  better;  but  I  think  the  inferior  quality  will 
keep  longer. 

Q.  It  is  a  contest  between  flavor  and  quality  and  durability? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  if  you  improve  the  quality  and  flavor  you  do  it  at  a  certain  expense  of 
durability? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  permanence? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I  never  handle  any  cheap  grades  at  all,  what- 
ever. I  never  did  in  my  life,  and  never  will.  That  is  the  reason- 1  do  the  business 
I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  think  there  is  anything  else  in  these  inferior  grades  of  oleomargarine f — 
A.  No,  I  don't  think  there  is,  because  it  is  composed  mostly  of  tallow 

Q.  The  nearer  they  come  to  tallow  the  more  permanent  it  is?— A.  Yes,  sir;  because 
I  never  saw  a  piece  of  tallow  spoil  in  my  life.  I  don't  think  there  is  any  such  thing 
as  its  spoiling. 

Q.  You  never  have  seen  rancid  tallow? — A.  I  don't  know  as  I  ever  did.  There 
might  be  such  a  thing,  but  I  don't  know  as  I  ever  saw  it.  The  more  cream  you  put 
into  oleo  the  shorter  time  it  will  keep.  That  is  the  way  I  figure  about  it. 

Q.  It  is  a  balancing  between  the  two  qualities? — A.  Yes;  and  seeing  as  I  have 
such  a  terrible  big  trade,  and  I  get  it  fresh  every  morning,  I  never  have  any  com- 
plaints. 

Q.  But  there  is  a  disposition,  for  social  reasons,  to  stick  to  the  old-fashioned  word 
"butter"? — A.  There  is  a  millionaire  comes  in  and  he  says  he  wants  another  pail  of 
butter  for  a  dollar  twenty-five. 

Q.  How  about  the  fellow  who  is  not  a  millionaire? — A.  He  is  just  as  proud  as  the 
millionaire. 

Q.  The  fellow  who  works  for  $1.50  a  day;  does  he  care  whether  his  package  is 
labeled  "  oleomargarine "  or  not?  Does  he  object  to  it? — A.  I  never  saw  one  that 
ever  did. 

Q.  And  he  will  come  in  and  walk  right  up  like  a  man  and  ask  for  oleomargarine? — 


an 


Q.  But  he  does  not  want  butterine ?— A.  No.  And  I  have  to  say,  "  Here  is  butter, 
«ad  here  is  butterine;  which  will  you  take?"  He  says,  "That  tastes  the  finest  I 
ever  saw  in  my  life.  I  guess  I  will  take  that."  And  that  settles  his  argument.  He 
never  argues  any  more. 

Q.  There  is  a  prejudice  against  the  name  among  all  classes?— A.  Among  all  classes, 
in  regard  to  calling  for  it. 


(•86) 


618  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Q.  He  was  not  afraid  ? — A.  No ;  he  was  not  afraid.  He  did  not  care.  But  he  would 
not  come  into  my  store  and  call  for  oleomargarine,  in  front  of  a  crowd,  but  he  will 
go  outside  and  say,  "I  buy  oleomargarine  from  this  man."  He  buys  it  for  15  cents. 

Q.  Do  you  think  a  man  is  entitled  to  know  just  what  he  is  getting? — A.  Certainly 
he  is. 

Q.  In  your  business  you  offer  him  every  opportunity  to  know?— A.  I  do  so  much 
business  I  don't  have  to  lie  to  him.  They  buy  it  anyway.  I  don't  have  to  lie  to  him. 
I  am  doing  the  real,  genuine  thing,  in  Chicago,  and  I  don't  have  to  lie  for  it.  And  I 
am  making  the  money.  I  don't  have  to  lie  to  them.  If  they  don't  like  it,  let  them 
go  somewhere  else,  and  get  beat,  and  then  they  will  come  back  to  me  later. 

Q.  You  have  no  knowledge  of  any  practice  or  custom  in  your  establishment  of 
folding  the  corner  of  the  paper,  such  as  we  have  seen? — A.  Not  in  any  way,  shape, 
form,  or  manner. 

Q.  No  such  idea  as  that  is  given  out  to  your  employees?— A.  We  had  some  trouble 
about  folding  the  paper.  I  will  show  you  how  it  can  be  folded  in  in  many  ways. 
We  will  suppose  the  stamp  is  on  this  corner  [illustrating],  and  the  stamp  comes 
from  this  end,  as  you  see,  down  to  this,  comes  right  around  the  outside.  You  can 
take  that  and  fold  it  over  like  that  [illustrating]  on  the  outside,  and  still  it  is  on 
the  outside.  I  don't  do  it,  but  they  done  it,  and  they  claim  it  is  folded  on  the  inside. 
Do  you  see  it  is  right  here  across  this  top?  Th-en-  they  take  it  and  fold  it  like  that 
[indicating]  and  fold  it  in  again,  and  you  see  it  is  on  the  inside. 

Q.  That  is  done  with  a  stamp? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  put  your  rubber  stamp  on  the  pad,  and  then  put  it  on  the  paper? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  would  be  a  simple  matter,  when  the  package  is  wrapped  up,  to  put  that 
stamp  on  the  outside,  would  it  not?— A.  Yes,  sir.  Then  they  take  it  and  turn  the 
paper  over,  and  put  the  word  "  oleo"  on  the  other  side,  and  put  it  on  the  inside. 

Q.  So  far  as  you  are  concerned,  that  would  be  the  simplest  possible  way? — A. 
Yes;  and  many  times,  just  as  soon  as  he  makes  the  discovery  that  this  is  oleo,  on 
the  outside,  he  says,  "  Put  another  wrapper  on  it  to  hide  it."  They  don't  want  to  be 
walking  along  the  street  showing  people  that  they  are  buying  oleomargarine,  but 
still  they  want  it.  When  this  new  law  came  up,  about  a  year  ago,  I  went  to  sell 
pure  butter,  and  it  came  back  just  as  fast  as  I  sold  it. 

Q.  It  did  not  have  keeping  qualities?— A.  No,  sir;  it  did  not  have  keeping  quali- 
ties, and  I  never  saw  any  that  ever  did  have. 

By  the  CHAIRMAN  : 

This  resolves  itself  into  a  question  of  veracity  between  you  and  this  gentleman 
[indicating  Mr.  Knight].  In  other  words,  he  says  he  bought  these  two  packages 
from  your  store. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  have  opened  both  packages  in  the  presence  of  the  committee,  and  they  were 
both  folded.— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Each  folded  in  the  same  way.  Now,  what  is  your  explanation ;  that  it  has 
been  changed  after  it  left  your  store? — A.  It  must  have  been,  without  this  man  that 
I  have  there  has  a  new  way  of  wrapping  them  up,  and  contrary  to  my  advisement. 
Of  course,  a  man  can  go  on,  and  pick  for  a  flaw,  such  as  he  has  done,  and  make 
trouble,  and  string  it  along,  if  he  wishes.  And,  as  I  say,  a  man  can  wrap  it  up  a 
dozen  different  ways,  and  bring  it  up  here  and  swear  that  he  got  it  that  identical 
way.  I  would  not  say  that  he  did  it,  but  I  have  my  opinion.  He  is  getting  pay  for 
this,  you  know,  and  I  am  not. 

By  Senator  HARRIS: 

Q.  There  is  one  question  I  want  to  ask  you  further.  The  pure  butter  which  you 
sell  is  wholly  or  partly  colored,  or  how  is  that?— A.  Some  of  it  is  as  yellow  as  gold. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  it  is  artificially  colored? — A.  I  could  not  just  state;  there 
is  a  good  deal  of  it,  because  in  January  butter  is  white  as  snow,  almost,  very  nearly, 
and  we  get  it  yellow  in  the  winter  time. 

Q.  If  genuine  butter  were  not  artificially  colored,  would  it  not  be  easier  to  distin- 
guish it  from  oleomargarine?— A.  Yes,  sir;  because  all  oleomargarine  is  colored. 

Q.  That  is,  uniformly  colored? — A.  Yes,  sir;  uniformly  colored,  just  as  you  see 
there  [referring  to  samples  of  oleomargarine  on  the  table], 

Q.  And  in  the  actual  process  of  producing  the  genuine  butter,  the  color  varies 
with  the  season? — A.  In  January  it  would  be  almost  white. 

Q.  In  June  it  would  all  be  about  the  same  color? — A.  No;  in  June  you  get  the 
green  grass. 

Q.  Then,  I  say,  it  would  be  the  color  of  oleomargarine.— A.  Yes,  sir;  and,  as  I 
understand,  the  two  articles  are  colored  by  the  same  thing. 

Q.  There  is  a  very  decided  contest,  practically,  between  the  creamery  men  and 
the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine,  as  to  who  shall  have  the  exclusive  privileges  of 
coloring  their  product?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  believe  there  is.  These  people  [referring  to 
the  interests  represented  by  Mr.  Knight]  want  the  oleomargarine  men  to  quit  color- 

(*36) 


OLEOMARGAEINE.  f>  1 9 

ing  it,  but  they  don't  want  to  quit  themselves.  They  want  to  live  in  glass  houses 
all  the  time,  and  they  want  to  protect  the  poor  man.  We  charge  15  and  18  cents; 
they  want  25  and  30  now.  What  would  they  get  in  cold  weather — in  January  and 
February?  They  want  to  get  60  cents.  They  want  to  protect  the  poor  man. 

Q.  If  the  oleomargarine  should  be  all  colored  pink,  would  that  affect  the  sale  of 
it?— A.  You  could  not  sell  a  pound  of  it. 

Q.  Why?— A.  It  kills  it  right  there. 

Q.  Because  everybody  would  know  that  it  was  oleomargarine? — A.  Yes,  sir.  Just 
as  I  was  telling  you  about  the  millionaire  buying  oleomargarine.  We  will  su  ppose 
1  invited  you  to  my  house  to  take  dinner,  and  I  had  some  of  this  pink  butter  on  the 
table.  Would  you  eat  it?  You  would  say  I  was  a  cheap  skate,  wouldn't  you? 

Q.  Very  well.  Then,  practically,  the  oleomargarine  has  to  masquerade  as  but- 
ter?— A.  It  has  to  resemble  butter. 

Q.  It  has  to  masquerade;  it  has  to  assume  to  be  butter? — A.  Not  if  you  can  whis- 
per to  the  man ;  it  is  all  right. 

Q.  That  is  just  the  same  thing.  Now,  is  it  not  the  plain,  palpable  fact,  that  oleo- 
margarine is  a  fraud  upon  the  public? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  sense  that  it  is  masquerading  as  butter? — A.  No,  sir,  it  is  not;  because, 
I  will  tell  you  why.  A  man  will  come  in  and  step  up  to  you,  and  whisper,  and  say, 
11 1  want  a  pail  of  oleo."  He  is  not  going  to  go  out  in  front  of  the  push  and  say,  "I 
want  a  pail  of  oleo." 

Q.  He  is  not  willing  to  deceive  himself,  but  he  is  willing  to  deceive  his  friends?— 
A.  Yes,  sir;  just  the  same  as  when  you  come  into  my  house  to  dinner,  and  see  this 
piuk  stuff  on  the  table. 

Q.  If  we  are  all  in  the  same  boat,  why  not  throw  aside  the  concealment?  »Why  not 
simply  let  it  be  known,  and  make  a  distinctive  color  distinction?— A.  Well,  sir,  it 
has  killed  it  in  other  States. 

This  man  Broadwdl  is  to-day  practicing  the  same  fraud  as  lie  was 
when  called  before  Senator  Mason's  committee.  The  matter  has  been 
reported  time  and  again  to  the  internal-revenue  collector,  and  he  has 
been  arrested  upon  complaint  of  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter,  but 
no  conviction  has  ever  been  secured,  although  hundreds  of  dollars  have 
been  expended  in  the  effort. 

The  other  two  called  before  the  committee  were  Eichard  Pollok  and 
August  Cliff,  both  of  whom  pleaded  carelessness  in  some  employee  in 
selling  without  stamping,  and  both  of  them  are  to-day  selling  oleomar- 
garine as  butter,  Cliff  advertising  in  the  street  cars  and  newspapers  for 
victims. 

In  his  testimony  Somes  is  shown  in  the  foregoing  to  have  stated  under 
oath  that  the  agents  of  the  manufacturers  had  advised  him  to  conceal 
the  oleomargarine  mark,  required  by  the  internal-revenue  law  to  be 
plainly  and  legibly  printed  on  the  outside  of  the  wrapper. 

However,  later  developments  in  the  Chicago  situation  brought  to 
light  the  true  policy  of  the  oleomargarine  people,  as  practiced  through- 
out the  United  States. 

During  the  month  of  July,  1899,  some  840  retailers  took  out  Govern- 
ment licenses  to  sell  oleomargarine  in  the  city.  As  nine  out  of  ten 
were  known  to  be  selling  it  for  butter,  and  the  tremendous  increase  in 
dealers  forecasted  a  complete  annihilation  of  the  butter  business  in  the 
city,  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  became  alarmed  and  decided  to  make  a 
desperate  attempt  to  at  least  stop  a  small  proportion  of  the  fraud. 
The  law  forbidding  coloring  was  tied  up  in  the  courts  through  the 
efforts  of  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine,  and  any  attempt  to 
enforce  it  would  only  result  in  the  release  of  the  defendant  through 
habeas  corpus  proceedings  upon  the  grounds  of  unconstitutionality, 
although  the  same  law  had  been  upheld  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  and  various  State  supreme  courts,  and  never  otherwise 
passed  upon  by  a  supreme  court. 

As  a  result  of  our  determination,  our  attorney,  Hon.  H.  Y.  Murray, 
on  July  29  sent  out  the  following  letter  to  every  retail  dealer  in  oleo- 
margarine in  the  city  of  Chicago  who  had  been  licensed  the  previous 
year: 

(*37) 


620  OLEOMARGAKINE. 

[Office  of  H.  V.  Murray,  attorney  at  law.] 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  July  S9,  1899. 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  have  been  employed  by  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  to  prosecute  any  cases 
of  violation  of  the  dairy  laws  of  this  State  which  may  result  from  the  arrest  of  any 
dealer  selling  oleomargarine  when  butter  is  called  for.  As  you  probably  know,  a 
commission,  consisting  of  a  food  commissioner  aud  eight  assistants  and  inspectors, 
was  provided  for  by  the  late  legislature,  whose  duty  it  is  to  enforce  these  laws.  The 
commissioner  has  been  appointed,  and  until  he  has  appointed  his  assistants  and 
gotten  to  work  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union's  inspectors  will  look  after  the  protection  of 
consumers  of  butter  and  see  that  those  who  sell  them  oleomargarine  for  butter  are 
prosecuted  under  the  State  laws,  and  also  reported  to  the  internal  revenue  depart- 
ment as  violators  of  the  internal-revenue  laws.  I  herewith  inclose  extracts  from 
thtee  State  laws.  These  laws  are  not  tied  up  in  the  courts,  and  the  oleomargarine 
manufacturers  will  not  place  themselves  in  the  light  of  protecting  those  who  sell 
oleomargarine  for  butter,  although  they  may  consistently  fight  the  law  forbidding 
coloring,  which  has  not  yet  been  passed  upon  by  the  supreme  court. 

If  you  sell  oleomargarine  this  year,  rest  assured  that  the  State  food  commissioner 
and  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  will  see  that  you  are  not  permitted  to  sell  it  as  butter. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

HUGH  V.  MURRAY, 
Attorney  for  Illinois  Dairy  Union. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Mr.  Murray  only  threatened  prosecutions  in 
case  ole6margarine  was  sold  for  butter. 

This  letter,  however,  created  consternation  in  the  ranks  of  the  oleo- 
margarine retailers.  Arrests  followed  at  once,  and  the  results  of  busi- 
ness the  next  few  weeks  in  butter  furnished  evidence  of  the  fraudulent 
character  of  the  oleo.  traffic.  Hundreds  of  dealers  who  had  not  been 
seen  in  wholesale  butter  houses  coine  to  buy  butter  for  the  trade  they 
had  been  selling  oleomargarine. 

The  field  was  too  large  to  be  handled  in  the  usual  manner  of  sending 
agents  personally  to  each  dealer  to  assure  him  of  protection,  and  thus 
the  hands  of  the  oleomargarine  makers  were  forced,  and  they  were 
brought  out  in  open  light. 

William  J.  Moxley,  claiming  to  be  the  largest  manufacturer  in  the 
United  States,  sent  the  following  letter  to  the  retail  dealers  in  the  north- 
ern district  of  Illinois,  under  date  of  August  2,  1899: 

[William  J.  Mozley,  manufacturer  of  fine  butterine,  63  and  65  West  Monroe  street.] 

CHICAGO,  August  2, 1899. 

City. 

DEAR  SIR:  Our  attention  has  been  called  to  two  circulars  which  have  been  mailed 
to  you— one  signed  by  Hugh  V.  Murray,  an  attorney,  and  the  other  by  Charles  Y. 
Knight,  editor  in  chief  of  a  periodical,  without  subscribers,  named  the  Chicago  Dairy 
Produce.  The  circular  bearing  Mr.  Knight's  name  has  at  its  head  an  imposing  lot 
of  names,  gentlemen  whose  aim  it  is  to  prevent  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine, 
so  that  the  butter  trust  might  be  enabled  to  get  from  30  to  40  cents  a  pound  for 
butter,  depriving,  as  they  would,  a  great  many  of  the  industrial  classes  from  being 
able  to  use  butter  through  its  excessive  price. 

With  the  hired  attorney,  who  is  earning  his  fee,  we  have  nothing  to  say,  only  to 
inform  you  that  these  gentlemen  are  trying  to  ring  in  a  bluff.  You  will  notice  in 
their  circulars  that  by  insinuations  they  would  have  people  believe  they  represent 
some  official  authority.  The  internal-revenue  department  looks  after  their  own 
business  and  the  State  after  theirs,  and  should  this  so-called  dairy  union  interfere 
with  your  business  in  the  way  of  prosecution  as  to  the  State  laws,  we  hereby  guar- 
antee you  protection  to  the  extent  of  paying  all  fines,  costs,  etc.,  until  the  color  law 
is  decided  unconstitutional  in  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  Illinios,  and  will 
further,  on  receiving  complaint,  take  such  action  for  damages  as  will  make  it 
unpleasant  for  some  of  those  who  are  attempting  to  interfere  with  your  and  our  own 
legitimate  business. 

We  were  under  the  impression  that  the  severe  censure  they  received  from  the 
judges  during  their  filibustering  of  last  year  would  have  been  sufficient  for  all  time, 
but  have  been  informed  that  to  be  successful  in  obtaining  money  from  farmers  and 
butter  men  a  few  circulars  with  imposing  headlines  are  required. 

(*38) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  621 

We  strongly  recommend  you  to  pay  no  attention  to  those  circulars.  "We  have 
always  been  in  a  position  to  protect  our  customers  from  injustice  and  blackmailers, 
and  will  be  ever  at  your  service  should  you  require  our  aid. 

Respectfully,  yours,  WM.  J.  MOXLEY. 

And  for  fear  the  above  manufacturer  might  get  some  of  their  trade, 
Braun  &  Fitts  sent  out  the  following  letter  at  about  the  same  time  to 
the  same  dealers: 

Every  licensed  butterine  dealer  in  Chicago  has  received  circular  letters  from  the 
secretary  and  attorney  for  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union,  promising  all  sorts  of  trouble  to 
dealers  in  butterine  (that  honest  and  pure  article  of  food).  Well,  now,  don't  you 
believe  a  word  of  it;  there  is  a  law  against  blackmailing,  and  we  want  now  and 
here  to  go  on  record  to  the  assertion,  as  an  affidavit,  that  we  shall  civilly  and  crimi- 
nally prosecute  any  man  or  party  of  men  interfering  unlawfully  with  the  butterine 
business  in  this  or  any  other  State.  We  know  exactly  where  we  stand;  we  are 
properly  advised  on  the  subject,  and  now  we  make  you  a  "fair  offer:"  " Handle  our 
goods  as  you  always  have,  we  in  turn  promise  and  guarantee  full  protection  against 
the  State  law  (which  has  been  declared  unconstitutional)  to  the  extent  of  paying 
cost  of  prosecution,  fines,  and  paying  all  costs  pertaining  thereto."  In  declaring  the 
law  unconstitutional  one  of  the  judges  stated  to  the  effect  "that  the  butter  ring  were, 
in  his  opinion,  liable  to  prosecution  to  recover  damages  done  an  honest  industry." 
Fair  enough,  isn't  it?  Renew  your  efforts,  and  be  assured  that  we  will  be  prepared 
to  fight  any  number  of  rounds  in  any  kind  of  a  legal  fight  to  the  finish.  Handle  our 
butterine  and  be  safe. 

THE  RESULT  OF  PROSECUTIONS. 

Despite  these  prosecutions,  however,  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  went 
forward  with  prosecutions.  Some  eighteen  dealers  were  arrested 
charged  with  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter.  The  warrants  for  their 
arrest  were  uniform,  and  the  following  is  a  true  copy  thereof: 

STATE  OF  ILLINOIS,  County  of  CooJc,  ss: 

Charles  Y.  Knight,  being  first  duly  sworn,  on  his  own  oath  states  that  he  is  informed 
and  has  just  and  reasonable  grounds  to  believe,  does  believe,  and  so  on  oath  states 
that  N.  A.  Wright,  late  of  the  county  of  Cook  and  State  of  Illinois,  whilst  engaged 
in  business  as  M.  A.  Wright  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  county  of  Cook,  and  State  of 
Illinois,  on,  to  wit,  the  15th  day  of  August,  1899,  at  his  place  of  business  aforesaid,  in 
said  county  and  State,  unlawfully,  willfully,  maliciously,  and  knowingly  did  sell  and 
deliver  as  butter  and  cause  to  be  sold  and  delivered  as  butter  an  article  of  food  into  the 
composition  of  which  oleomargarine  or  suinehad  entered,  to  one  John  Fewer,  of  the 
city  of  Chicago,  in  tbe  county  and  State  aforesaid,  without  at  the  same  time  inform- 
ing the  said  John  Fewer  of  the  fact,  and  of  the  proportion  into  which  said  oleomar- 
garine, euine,  butterine,  beef  fat,  lard,  or  other  foreign  substance  had  entered  into  the 
composition  of  said  article,  contrary  to  the  form  of  the  statute  in  such  case  made 
and  provided,  and  against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Affiant  therefore  asks  that  a  warrant  issue  herein  for  the  arrest  of  the  said  M.  A. 
Wright,  and  that  he  be  prosecuted  according  to  law. 

CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  16th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1899. 
[SEAL.]  G.  W.  UNDERWOOD,  J.  P. 

These  cases  were  defended  by  attorneys  employed  by  the  two  manu 
facturing  firms,  W.  J.  Moxley  and  Braun  &  Fitts.  Eoy  O.  West,  Mr 
Moxley's  regular  attorney,  was  counsel,  assisted  by  Worth  E.  Caylor 
The  cases  were  fought  for  about  two  months  and  briefs  were  submitted  in 
justice  court.  The  defense  did  not  deny  the  charge  of  selling  oleomar- 
garine for  butter.  They  set  up  the  claim  that  the  law  was  unconstitu- 
tional, and  the  chief  grounds  upon  which  it  was  alleged  to  be  invalid 
were  stated  in  their  brief,  as  follows : 

[From  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers'  brief.] 

The  crime  charged  in  the  complaints  is  that  the  defendants  caused  to  be  sold  and 
delivered  as  butter  an  article  of  food  into  the  composition  of  which  oleomargarine  or 
suine  had  entered  to  one  John  Fewer,  etc.,  and  without  at  the  same  time  informing 

("89) 


5*22  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  said  John  Fewer  of  the  fact  and  proportions  in  which  said  oleomargarine,  snine, 
beef  fat,  lard,  or  other  foreign  substances  had  entered  into  the  composition  of  said 
article,  contrary  to  the  form  of  the  statute,  etc. 

The  language  used  in  the  complaints  is  almost  exactly  the  same  as  that  used  in 
the  latter  part  of  section  28  of  the  criminal  code,  as  above  quoted. 

There  can  be  no  convictions  under  these  complaints  for  the  following  reasons: 

First.  The  act  in  itself  is  not  an  act  to  prevent  the  selling  of  oleomargarine  for 
butter.  It  is  "An  act  to  prevent  and  punish  the  adulteration  of  articles  of  food, 
drink,  and  medicine  and  the  sale  thereof  when  adulterated."  To  be  more  specific, 
this  section  is  limited  to  the  mixing  of  oleomargarine  or  any  other  foreign  substance 
with  any  butter  intended  for  human  food.  If  oleomargarine  or  butterine  are  sold, 
there  can  be  no  conviction  under  this  section,  even  though  they  are  sold  for  butter. 

It  is  very  evident  that  the  man  who  sells  an  article  can  not  know  the  propor- 
tions that  any  adulterant  enters  into  the  butter  unless  he  mixes  or  manufactures  it. 
Mere  hearsay  from  the  person  from  whom  the  seller  purchases  the  article  would  not 
be  evidence  of  the  correct  proportions  or  ingredients,  so  as  to  relieve  the  seller  of 
any  liability.  The  labeling  by  the  manufacturer  or  the  mixer  of  the  article  would 
not  bind  the  seller  with  the  true  knowledge  of  the  constituents  of  the  article  sold. 

Manifestly,  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  retailer,  or  seller,  to  make  a  chemical 
analysis  of 'every  article  of  this  kind  that  entered  his  place,  because  it  would  make 
such' additional  expense  that  it  would  prohibit  the  sale  of  the  article.  If  it  would 
prohibit  the  sale  of  the  article,  the  statute  would  be  unconstitutional. 

The  above  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  defenses  ever  set  up  in  any 
food  case  ever  brought  into  court,  as  in  order  to  make  a  defense  where 
a  law  requires  labeling  the  claim  is  made  that  no  retailer  can  be  sure  of 
what  he  is  selling  unless  he  has  it  analyzed,  and  that  analysis  would 
cost  so  much  that  it  would  prohibit  the  business.  It  is  a  denial  of  the 
right  of  the  State  to  protect  its  citizens  in  any  way  in  the  purchase  of 
food,  as  it  claims  that  the  retailer  himself  can  not  know  what  he  is  sell- 
ing, and  that  any  law  which  forced  him  to  ascertain  that  fact  would  be 
unconstitutional. 

The  above  illustration  is  given  to  prove  that  sellers  of  oleomargarine 
defend  their  customers  in  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter,  which 
sale  was  in  open  violation  of  both  State  and  Federal  laws,  and  to  show 
that  they  will  not  comply  with  the  most  reasonable  regulations.  In 
other  words,  they  hold  themselves  to  be  wholly  above  the  State  laws, 
and  defend  violations  of  such  laws,  which  violations  are  in  effect  viola- 
tions of  the  Federal  laws  and  which  would  have  been  prosecuted  in 
the  Federal  courts  but  for  the  fact  that  the  collector  of  internal  reve- 
nue refused  to  make  the  prosecutions  upon  evidence  of  outsiders,  and 
stated  that  he  had  neither  time  for  the  work  nor  money  to  purchase 
samples  with  which  to  do  the  prosecuting  in  his  own  department. 

These  cases  were  dismissed  by  the  justice  of  the  peace  upon 
grounds  that  a  subsequent  statute  had  repealed  the  law  under  which 
the  warrants  were  drawn,  but  not  until  after  $1,600  had  been  spent  by 
the  parties  interested  in  an  effort  to  stop  this  gigantic  fraud  in  the 
city  of  Chicago.  The  decision  admitted  of  no  appeal,  the  Dairy  Union's 
funds  were  exhausted,  and  while  the  decision  was  looked  upon  as  the 
most  ridiculous  piece  of  justice  ever  perpetrated  upon  the  public  the 
oleomargarine  manufacturers  stood  ready  to  enter  into  other  contro- 
versies upon  any  points  or  under  any  laws  we  might  proceed  under  in 
order  to  stop  their  swindling  of  the  public  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  where 
not  one  in  twenty- five  dealers  has  ever  pretended  to  comply  with  the 
national  law,  and  not  one  ever  observes  any  State  law. 

CAN  A  STATE   PROTECT  ITS  CITIZENS  FROM  FRAUD? 

Swift  &  Co.  go  on  to  say: 

Eighth.  Some  of  these  bills  propose  to  withdraw  from  oleomargarine  all  the  rights 
and  protection  of  interstate  cpmmerce,  and  to  turn  it  over  to  the  tender  mercies  of 
the  various  State  legislatures,  which  may  be  interested  in  restricting  or  prohibiting 
its  manufacture  or  sale,  because  of  its  competition  with  local  interests  or  products. 

(*40) 


OLEOMABGAEINE.  623 

If  this  principle  of  legislation  is  once  conceded,  where  will  it  end?  If  New  York 
can  oxclud.  oleomargarine  from  the  markets  of  the  State  because  it  comes  into  com- 
petition with  its  dairy  interests,  why  should  not  Vermont  prohibit  the  sale  of  beet 
sugar  to  protect  its  maple-sugar  crop?  Why  should  not  West  Virginia  prohibit  the 
sale  of  all  anthracite  coal  "  designed  to  take  the  place  of  bituminous  coal  as  an  article 
of  fuel,"  or  Louisiana  prohibit  the  use  of  beet  sugar  or  glucose  or  saccharine  because 
these  may  be  used  as  substitutes  for  the  local  product  of  cane  sugar?  Is  Congress 
ready  to  affirm  that  in  order  to  protect  the  business  and  products  of  one  State  the 
business  and  products  of  another  State  may  be  excluded? 

Upon  this  point  Swift  &  Co.  can  be  directly  answered  by  an  extract 
from  Justice  Harlan's  decision  in  the  case  of  Plumley  v.  Massachusetts, 
previously  referred  to.  Says  this  honored  jurist,  referring  to  the  rights 
of  the  State  to  regulate  and  control  the  oleomargarine  traffic,  then 
under  review : 

If  there  be  any  subject  over  which  it  would  seem  the  States  ought  to  have  plenary 
control  and  the  power  to  legislate  in  respect  to  which  it  ought  not  to  be  supposed 
was  intended  to  be  surrendered  to  the  General  Government,  it  is  the  protection  of 
the  people  against  fraud  and  deception  in  the  sale  of  food  products.  Such  legisla- 
tion may,  indeed,  indirectly  or  incidentally  affect  trade  in  such  products  transported 
from  one  State  to  another  State.  But  that  circumstance  does  not  show  that  laws  of 
the  character  alluded  to  are  inconsistent  with  the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate 
commerce  among  the  States. 

Let  us,  however,  look  at  the  illustrations  cited  by  Swift  &  Co.  in  a 
manner  consistent  with  this  question.  Does  any  one  doubt  that  if 
citizens  of  West  Virginia  should  so  manipulate  its  bituminous  coal  as 
to  make  it  an  exact  imitation  of  the  anthracite  of  Pennsylvania,  using 
a  polish  to  give  it  luster  and  a  mold  to  imitate  the  anthracite  form,  and 
the  Pennsylvania  people  found  that  citizens  of  that  State  were,  daily 
purchasing  this  bituminous  coal  for  anthracite  and  at  anthracite  prices, 
that  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  should  have  the  legal  right  to  say  that 
West  Virginia's  bituminous  coal  must  not  be  so  manipulated  as  to 
cause  the  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  to  think  it  anthracite  and  thus  be 
defrauded?  Should  officers  be  stationed  at  every  coal  pile  to  see  that 
every  customer  was  advised  that  the  fuel  which  resembled  anthracite 
was  a  cheaper  and  less  serviceable  grade?  And  would  the  people  of 
Pennsylvania  accept  as  an  excuse  for  the  counterfeiting  of  anthracite 
coal  such  reasons  as  are  put  forward  by  the  oleomargarine  makers  in 
justification  of  coloring  their  product  to  resemble  butter — that  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  pleasing  the  eye? 

The  trouble  with  Swift  &  Co.'s  comparisons  are  that  they  endeavor 
to  compare  things  that  differ.  They  are  now  preparing  to  make  an 
onslaught  against  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York  and  endeavor  to 
force  their  counterfeit  product  into  the  only  State  in  the  country  which 
has  protected  its  people  with  any  degree  of  success  with  State  laws, 
but  which  has  been  done  at  enormous  expense  to  the  State  and  at  the 
expense  of  eternal  vigilance,  necessitating  at  times  the  dispatching  of 
agents  as  far  west  as  Illinois  to  seek  out  violators  and  expose  them  to 
the  internal-revenue  department. 

Thus  far,  with  the  exceptions  of  two  Federal  lower  courts,  the  rights 
of  the  State  to  exclude  oleomargarine  made  in  semblance  of  butter  has 
never  been  denied.  But  the  lack  of  specific  legislation  upon  this  sub- 
ject has  befogged  some  of  the  tribunals,  and  nothing  but  direct  legis- 
lation to  the  point  will  clear  the  matter  up  and  protect  the  laws  of  the 
States. 

The  States  whose  laws  are  thus  threatened  are  such  ones  as  have 
provided  for  the  powerful  State  machinery  and  support  to  enforce  their 
laws  against  the  invaders.  This  provision  alone  would  not  greatly 
benefit  such  States  as  Illinois,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Massachusetts,  and 
other  States  where  the  reterl  dealers— always  amenable  to  State  laws, 


624  OLEOMARGARINE. 

so  far  as  any  protection  the  interstate-commerce  laws  may  afford — are 
being  backed  up  in  their  defiance  of  the  laws  by  the  manufacturers, 
who  can  simply  afford  to  spend  more  money  in  defense  than  the  State 
can  afford  for  prosecution. 

IS  OLEOMARGARINE  THE   "POOR  MAN'S  BUTTER?" 

Following,  Swift  &  Co.  have  something  interesting  to  say  about 
prices : 

Ninth.  The  various  grades  of  oleomargarine  manufactured  range  in  price,  on  an 
average,  from  10  cents  per  pound  for  the  cheapest  grade  to  15  cents  per  pound  for 
the  highest  grade.  The  average  price  of  the  cheapest  grade  of  oleomargarine  for  the 
year  ending  December  31,  1899,  was  exactly  lOf  cents  per  pound.  This  is  the  price 
charged  by  both  manufacturers  and  jobbers  to  the  retail  dealer,  the  price  to  the  job- 
ber being  one-half  cent  per  pound  less  than  to  the  retailer.  From  this  i  fc  will  be  seen 
that  a  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  would  equal  the  price  obtained  for  the  product  and 
would  completely  destroy  a  business  which  has  been  recognized  by  law,  which  fur- 
nishes a  large  annual  revenue  to  the  Government,  which  provides  employment  for 
large  numbers  of  men,  and  in  which  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  invested 
their  fortunes  and  their  energies,  for  it  is  a  fact  which  must  be  apparent  to  all  who 
will  reflect  that  the  tax  proposed  by  these  bills  is  prohibitive  and  therefore 
destructive.  Congress  is  now  asked  to  destroy  that  which  it  has  heretofore  recog- 
nized as  lawful,  and  from  which  it  has  derived  large  revenues  each  year. 

The  foregoing  is  also  a  subject  upon  which  we  may  be  able  to  offer 
some  information.  Swift  &  Co.  say  it  could  not  stand  a  tax  of  10  cents 
per  pound  and  live. 

At  what  price  does  oleomargarine  sell  at  retail!  Here  is  the  test. 
The  manufacturer  makes  a  good,  liberal  profit,  but  the  retailer  is  the 
man  who  is  compelled  to  do  the  disreputable  work  of  disposing  of  it  for 
butter,  and  he  demands  extraordinary  margins  for  so  doing,  which  is 
quite  natural.  Let  us  see  what  arguments  besides  the  guarantees  of 
protection  are  advanced  to  induce  the  retailer  to  violate  the  laws  of  his 
State  and  face  the  possibility  of  indictment  and  trial  in  court. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  exhibits  in  this  line  is  a  circular  letter 
issued  by  the  Capital  City  Dairy  Company  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  Decem- 
ber 1, 1899.  It  follows: 

[The  Capital  City  Dairy  Company,  makers  of  butterine,  highest  quality  only,  No.  185  to  197  Third 

avenue  east 

COLUMBUS,  OHIO,  December  1, 1899. 

DEAR  SIR:  With  the  appended  change  in  price  list  we  can  only  reiterate  that  our 
"  Purity  "  grade  is  equal  if  not  superior  to  most  makes  creamery  butterine,  therefore, 
"Purity"  selling  at  20  cents,  "Buckeye"  or  " Pride "  should  sell  at  25  to  30  cents. 
If  you  want  a  popular  priced  grade  our  "Silver  Leaf"  is  particularly  appropriate. 
Ever  remember  this  indisputable  fact :  You  can  obtain  for  our  butterine  a  better 
retail  price  than  for  any  other  make  in  the  United  States. 

Purity,  14  cents  per  pound. 

Silver  Leaf,  15  cents  per  pound. 

Buckeye,  17  cents  per  pound. 

C.  C.  Pride,  18  cents  per  pound. 

Prices  subject  to  change  without  notice. 

Goods  billed  at  price  in  effect  on  day  of  shipment. 

F.  O.  B.  Columbus,  Ohio,  net  cash. 

DIFFERENTIALS. 

One-half  cent  advance  for  solids  under  25  pounds,  and  rolls  or  prints  2  pounds  and 
over. 

One  cent  for  rolls  and  prints  1  pound  and  less  than  2  pounds;  also  small  tubs  in 
crates  and  boxes ;  also  unsalted  butterine. 

One  and  one-half  cents  for  rolls  or  prints  of  one-half  pound  and  less  than  1  pound. 
Two  cents  for  rolls  and  prints  under  8  ounces. 

Mixed,  catch,  or  country  rolls  figured  at  prices  of  smallest  roll  or  print  in  package* 
Very  truly,  yours, 

THE  CAPITAL  CITY  DAIRY  CQ.^ 
(*42) 


OLEOMAKGAEINE.  625 

At  the  time  this  circular  was  issued  butter  of  best  quality  was  worth 
at  wholesale  about  25  cents  in  Chicago. 

The  Capital  City  Dairy  Company  tells  its  customers  that  they  ought 
to  get  from  25  to  30  cents  for  "Buckeye"  or  "Pride"  oleomargarine, 
which  they  will  sell  the  retailer  at  17  to  18  cents  f.  o.  b.  Columbus.  This 
means  from  8  to  13  cents  per  pound  profit,  or  from  33  to  almost  80  per 
cent  profit  on  the  "poor  man's  butter." 

But  no,  that  is  not  what  this  means.  The  mention  of  30  cents  per 
pound  means  to  convey  to  the  retailer  the  suggestion  that  "Pride"  or 
"Buckeye"  can  be  sold  at  butter  prices — for  that  is  about  what  the 
best  butter  would  be  worth  at  retail — and  as  butter. 

And  this  concern,  as  well  as  the  others,  are  not  satisfied  with  imi- 
tating butter  color,  butter  tubs,  butter  rolls,  and  butter  prints,  but  needs 
must  put  up  "mixed,  catch,  or  country  rolls" — that  is,  place  in  a  box 
various  sizes,  shapes,  colors,  and  designs  of  oleomargarine  to  cause  the 
contents  of  said  box  to  resemble  country  butter  as  it  comes  fresh  to  the 
stores  from  the  farmer.  That  is  why  the  price  is  figured  at  "price  of 
smallest  roll  or  print  in  package."  Can  the  manufacturer  plead  in  justi- 
fication of  this  scheme  to  defraud  and  mislead  "  a  desire  to  please  the 
eye?" 

But  let  us  look  a  little  further  into  the  ability  of  yellow  oleomarga- 
garine  to  stand  an  increase  of  tax. 

The  average  cost  of  raw  materials  can  not  be  much  more  than  8  cents 
per  pound  for  the  best  that  is  made  without  butter — and  of  course  very 
little  butter — that  article  "  devoid  of  keeping  qualities  and  of  'doubtful7 
cleanliness" — would  be  used  in  the  immaculate  product,  oleomargarine. 
It  has  been  shown  that  the  manufacturer  sells  it  for  from  10  to  18  cents 
a  pound  and  the  retailer  is  advised  that  he  ought  to  sell  it  at  from 
20  to  30  cents  per  pound.  Between  8  cents  cost  of  raw  materials  and  30 
cents  at  retail  is  a  margin  of  22  cents,  furnishing  plenty  of  room  for 
the  10- cent  tax,  which  amount  and  profit  is  now  serving  as  an  incen- 
tive for  the  retailer  to  sell  the  stuff  as  butter  and  giving  the  manufac- 
turer a  profit  that  will  permit  him  to  pay  costs  and  fines  and  other- 
wise defray  all  expenses  incurred  in  the  defense  of  such  suits.  It  is 
this  unnatural,  abnormal,  unfair,  and  corrupting  profit  that  we  desire  to 
be  taken  away  from  the  traffic  in  order  that  our  laws  may  stand  some 
chance  of  being  enforced  without  having  to  expend  as  much  State 
money  as  these  counterfeiters  can  afford  to  spend  of  their  ill-gotten 
gains. 

But  let  us  see  what  some  others  have  to  say  about  the  profits  derived 
from  the  sale  of  oleomargarine. 

In  a  circular  letter  sent  the  Chicago  trade  October  22, 1898,  Wm.  J. 
Moxley  says,  among  other  things: 

Your  profit  will  be  double  the  amount  made  from  the  butter  you  are  now  handling, 
and  your  butter  trade  will  be  more  satisfied  if  you  will  sell  them  such  butterine  as 
you  can  buy  from  me. 

Under  date  of  March  17, 1899,  Messrs.  Braun  &  Fitts,  of  Chicago, 
sent  out  a  circular  containing  the  following: 

Now  is  your  chance  to  build  up  a  first-class  trade  by  handling  only  first-class 
butterine.  Eggs  are  selling  at  cost,  but  "the  only  high  grade"  will  give  you  profit, 
so  keep  pushing  its  sale  and  build  up  a  reputation  for  good  butter. 

Please  note,  the  circular  doesn't  say,  "build  up  a  reputation  for  good 
butterine,"  but  for  "good  butter." 

We  could  supply  Congress  with  hundreds  of  instances  of  where  the 
retailers  advertise  butter  and  sell  nothing  but  oleomargarine.  But  our 
endeavor  here  is  to  reveal  the  connection  of  the  manufacturer  with  the 

*S.  Rep.  2043 40  (*43) 


626  OLEOMARGARINE. 

imposition  now  being  practiced  upon  the  public — to  show  what  the 
men  are  doing  who  will  appeal  to  you  to  spare  their  industry  upon  the 
grounds  that  while  there  may  be  fraud  practiced  in  a  small  way  by 
some  irresponsible  retailer,  their  interests  should  not  be  made  to  suffer 
therefor. 

We  charge  that  the  manufacturers  are  directly  responsible  for  the 
fraud;  they  devise  schemes,  and  instruct  retailers  in  their  consumma- 
tion; but  for  their  law-defying  attitude  the  State  laws  would  be  as 
easily  enforced  as  the  laws  against  any  other  fraud. 

vAnother  phase  of  this  question  is  the  position  in  which  the  law-abid- 
ing retailer  is  placed. 

Where  oleomargarine  is  really  sold  at  reasonable  figures  it  is  usually 
advertised  as  a  "bargain  sale  in  butter."  It  is  used  to  draw  trade  for 
other  lines.  In  some  instances  honest  grocers  are  hampered  by  com- 
petitors who  sell  15-cent  butterine  as  butter  for  25  or  28  cents,  and  take 
the  5  or  8  cents  of  profit  off  some  other  article  or  articles,  thus  cheat- 
ing the  consumer  on  butter  when  he  believes  he  is  getting  a  bargain  all 
around. 

The  following  from  a  circular  letter  sent  out  by  W.  J.  Moxley  Decem- 
ber 10, 1898,  shows  up  this  side  of  the  question : 

When  a  woman  goes  to  buy  groceries  there  is  one  article  of  goods  she  must  have, 
and  that  is  butter.  She  may  want  sugar,  coffee,  and  other  articles,  but  she  wants 
butter  and  wants  it  at  a  price  to  suit  her  means.  If  you  can  not  supply  her  don't 
expect  her  to  buy  her  coffees,  teas,  and  other  articles  of  you,  and  then  go  a  block  to 
another  grocery  to  buy  four  or  five  pounds  oi'  "  Moxley's  Special."  If  she  is  a  prac- 
tical woman  she  will  go  to  a  store  where  all  her  wants  can  be  supplied.  Some  are 
deterred  from  going  into  the  butterine  business  through  having  to  pay  for  a  license. 
This  is  a  mistaken  idea.  Ninety-five  per  cent  of  the  dealers  who  take  out  a  license 
for  one  year  take  it  ever  after,  the  other  5  per  cent  fail  in  business.  Nothing  can 
save  them. 

Note  again,  Mr.  Moxley,  doesn't  say,  u  there  is  one  article  of  goods 
she  must  have,  and  that  is  oleomargarine."  Oh,  no.  She  must  have 
butter.  And  if  you  don't  deceive  her  into  thinking  she  is  getting  butter 
at  a  lower  price  than  it  can  be  honestly  sold,  then  you  lose  her  trade 
and  fail  in  business.  And  there  is  considerable  truth  in  this.  The 
dealer  who  is  dishonest  has  an  unfair,  unjust,  and  illegal  advantage, 
and  such  a  condition  places  a  premium  upon  crime. 

.The  10-cent  tax  will  take  awa^  this  injustice  by  depriving  yellow 
oleomargarine  of  its  corrupting  powers. 

DOES  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  OLEOMARGARINE  DEPEND  UPON  ITS  YELLOW 

COLOR? 

And  now  in  closing  Swift  &  Co.  make  a  remarkable  omission.  They 
say: 

Tenth.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  people  who  use  oleomargarine  are  the 
intelligent,  prudent,  and  thrifty  people  of  the  middle  classes,  who  buy  oleomargarine 
because  they  prefer  it  to  that  which  is  sold  as  batter  in  their  markets,  and  who  are 
too  intelligent  to  be  deceived  even  if  anyone  wished  to  deceive  them.  These  bills 
propose  to  make  it  impossible  for  these  people  to  buy  what  they  wish  to  buy, 
although  it  is  known  to  be  absolutely  clean,  wholesome,  and  healthful,  for  these  are 
facts  which  have  been  established  in  courts  and  by  reports  of  officials,  State  and 
national,  and  by  investigations  of  various  kinds  carried  on  in  all  parts  of  the  country, 
and  the  results  widely  published. 

Oleomargarine,  then,  has  ceased  to  be  u  The  poor  man's  butter?" 
This  is  a  remarkable  change  in  conditions.    There  is  only  "one  expla- 
nation for  such  a  change  in  the  claims  of  the  oleomargarine  makers. 
A  resolution  was  presented  to  the  central  body  at  Chicago  a  few  weeks 


OLEOMAEGABHSTE.  627 

ago  condemning  the  Grout  bill  and  instructing  the  secretary  to  call 
upon  kindred  and  allied  labor  organizations  to  pass  the  same  kind  of 
resolutions  and  send  to  Congress.  A  committee  was  sent  out  to  inves- 
tigate the  matter;  the  fraud  was  shown  them  in  a  half  dozen  shops 
within  a  stone's  throw.  The  question  was  fully  explained  to  them, 
and  they  returned  with  the  assurance  that  if  they  made  any  recommen- 
dation it  would  be  for  the  passage  of  the  measure,  as  they  had  never 
imagined  such  an  appalling  condition  of  affairs  could  exist  as  was 
demonstrated  to  them  when  they  were  taken  into  stores  where  creamery 
butter  was  asked  for  and  packages  brazenly  taken  from  boxes  which 
the  sellers  were  later  forced  to  admit  had  concealed  upon  them  the 
revenue  stamp  showing  them  to  contain  oleomargarine. 

The  committee  which  made  the  investigation  was  President  Daley 
and  Director  Carmody,  the  latter  remarking  after  visiting  the  place  of 
the  Ohio  Butter  Company,  at  54  Fifth  avenue,  and  seeing  the  frauds 
practiced  there,  that  the  tax  ought  to  be  25  cents  instead  of  10  cents. 
The  above  statement  I  will  make  affidavit  to,  although  it  appears  the 
resolution  was  really  passed  at  the  instigation  of  the  box  makers7  union, 
which  makes  boxes  for  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine. 

THE  USE  OF  THE  TAXING  POWER. 

Now,  a  word  regarding  the  advisability  of  employing  the  taxing  power 
of  the  Government  as  an  internal  protective  measure.  This  question  is 
admitted  to  be  one  demanding  mature  deliberation,  and  the  use  of  the 
taxing  power,  it  is  conceded,  must  be  carefully  exercised.  In  8  Howard, 
82,  we  find  the  following: 

Tlie  taxing  power  of  a  State  is  one  of  its  attributes  to  sovereignty.  *  *  The 
only  restraint  is  found  in  the  responsibility  of  the  legislature  to  their  constituents. 

While  in  4  Wheat.,  316,  we  find: 

If  the  end  be  legitimate  and  within  the  scope  of  the  Constitution,  all  the  means 
which  are  appropriate,  which  are  plainly  adapted  to  that  end,  and  which  are  not 
prohibited,  may  constitutionally  be  employed  to  carry  it  into  effect. 

If  a  certain  means  to  carry  into  effect  any  of  the  powers  expressly  given  by  the 
Constitution  to  the  Government  of  the  Union  be  an  appropriate  measure,  not  pro- 
hibited by  the  Constitution,  the  degree  of  its  necessity  is  a  question  of  legislative 
discretion — not  of  judicial  cognizance. 

But  probably  the  best  argument  for  the  use  of  the  taxing  power  for 
such  a  purpose  is  found  in  9  Wall.,  in  one  of  the  original  tax  cases, 
where  a  retail  liquor  dealer  claimed  immunity  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  State  because  of  the  fact  that  he  held  a  license  from  the  Govern- 
ment. The  court  said  in  this  case: 

There  is  nothing  hostile  or  contradictory,  therefore,  in  the  acts  of  Congress  to  the 
legislation  of  the  State.  What  the  latter  prohibits  the  former,  if  the  business  is 
found  existing  notwithstanding  the  prohibition,  discourages  by  taxation.  The  two 
lines  of  legislation  proceed  in  the  same  direction  and  tend  to  the  same  results. 

Here  the  court  judicially  recognized  in  the  taxing  power  a  tendency 
to  discourage  what  the  State  prohibits. 

And  again,  Congress  might  well  hesitate  to  select  at  random  one 
industry,  the  standing  of  which  with  the  people  might  be  open  to  ques- 
tion, and  discourage  or  hamper  it  with  taxation. 

But  courts  have  uniformly  held  that  in  the  exercise  of  its  taxing 
power  Congress  is  repousible  only  to  the  people;  that  the  remedy  of 
the  people  for  excessive  taxation  lies  in  an  appeal  to  their  representa- 
tives and  not  to  the  courts. 

In  this  matter  the  i>eople  of  the  States  have  expressed  themselves  by 

(*45) 


B28  OLEOMARGARINE. 

a  four-fifth's  majority  as  being  opposed  to  the  existence  or  commerce  in 
the  article  we  seek,  if  you  please,  to  discourage  by  taxation.  The  legis- 
latures of  thirty-two  leading  States  have  declared  traffic  in  oleomar- 
garine colored  to  resemble  butter  to  be  a  menace  to  the  individual 
rights  and  welfare  of  their  people.  Thirty-two  legislatures  have  thor- 
oughly investigated  the  matter  and  in  both  branches  came  to  the  same 
conclusions.  Our  charge  of  fraudulent  similation  has  been  sustained 
by  the  representatives  of  four-fifths  of  the  people  of  this  country,  and 
the  high  courts  have  invariably  pronounced  their  grounds  well  taken 
and  their  reasoning  sound.  It  is  not  a  case  of  Congress  oppressively 
taxing  the  people,  or  wrongfully  employing  its  taxing  power;  it  is  a 
case  of  where  the  people  of  practically  every  State  arise  and  appeal  to 
Congress  for  aid  in  accomplishing  something  which  they  have  sought 
but  failed  to  do  with  State  laws  specially  enacted.  There  can  be  no 
protests  from  the  people,  because  they  themselves  have  sought  the 
legislature  as  the  only  practical  solution  of  a  condition  which  is  rapidly 
becoming  oppressively  intolerable. 

Need  any  Congressman  hesitate  to  support  a  measure  the  intent  or 
effect  of  which  may  be  to  discourage  traffic  in  an  article  totally  for- 
bidden in  his  State?  Upon  the  other  hand,  should  he  not,  as  a  law- 
abiding  citizen  and  a  representative  of  his  people,  endeavor  to  use  his 
best  efforts  in  Congress  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  people  of  his 
State?  Can  a  representative  in  Congress  question  the  wisdom  of  the 
policy  of  the  legislatures  of  the  leading  States  when  their  actions  have 
been  so  uniform  in  the  treatment  of  the  subject  under  discussion? 

And  further,  what  right  has  anybody  in  any  State  where  the  sale  of 
yellow  oleomargarine  is  forbidden  to  object  to  this  tax?  Where  can  his 
interest  lie?  If  he  is  a  law-abiding  citizen  his  interests  can  not  be 
affected.  If  he  is  not  a  law-abiding  citizen,  what  claim  has  he  upon 
the  representative  of  his  people  in  Congress?  Can  a  member  of  Con- 
gress afford  to  be  influenced  by  a  citizen  who  has  no  respect  for  the 
laws  of  his  State? 

It  is  the  will  of  the  people  of  Illinois,  expressed  by  two  thirds  of  the 
legislature  of  the  State,  that  oleomargarine  colored  in  semblance  of 
butter  should  not  be  sold.  Swift  &  Co.  and  other  manufacturers  prac- 
tically come  before  Congress  and  say: 

Now,  you  see  here,  this  is  our  fight.  We  are  too  big  for  the  State  of  Illinois,  as 
well  as  many  other  States,  and  we're  having  things  our  own  way.  We  don't  care 
for  State  laws  at  all,  because  we  can  get  around  them.  We  are  selling  more  colored 
oleomargarine  now  than  we  were  before  the  laws  forbidding  its  manufacture  and 
sale  were  enacted.  But  if  you  Members  of  Congress  go  and  put  a  tax  of  10  cents  a 
pound  on  this  stuff  it  would  ruin  our  business.  We  can't  fight  the  Government 
when  it  goes  after  its  taxes,  although  the  Internal -Revenue  Department  doesn't 
bother  our  retailers  by  making  them  comply  with  the  law  regarding  branding, 
because  the  Government  doesn't  lose  any  revenue  through  these  violations,  but  is 
rather  a  gainer.  You  just  let  us  alone  and  we'll  do  as  we  please.  What  business 
have  the  people  of  the  State  making  laws  that  will  interfere  with  an  industry  that 
produces  a  healthful  article,  anyway?  Of  course,  we  realize  that  occasionally  some 
oleomargarine  is  sold  for  butter,  but  why  not  chase  around  among  the  thousands 
who  retail  the  stuff  and  punish  them  if  you  can  catch  them?  No,  gentlemen,  we 
don't  care  what  the  States  say;  our  business  is  such  that  they  can't  reach  us.  But 
it  would  be  outrageous  for  the  Representatives  of  these  States  in  Congress  to  get 
together  and  fix  up  a  scheme  which  would  prevent  us  doing  as  we  pleased  in  their 
States  hereafter.  All  we  ask  is  to  be  let  alone  in  our  fight  with  your  people,  whom 
we  are  forcing  to  eat  our  product  whether  they  want  it  or  not. 

WHY  SECTION  2  IS  NECESSARY. 

The  dairy  interests  of  the  United  States  are  divided  into  two  classes. 
One  represents  the  class  located  in  States  where  the  legal  machinery 
has  been  unsuccessful  in  coping  with  this  fraud.  Statistics  of  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  629 

internal  revenue  show  that  New  York  is  about  the  only  important  con- 
suming State  thus  situated. 

The  other  class  comprises  the  other  States  which  have  found  it  im- 
possible with  State  laws  to  prevent  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  contrary 
to  their  State  laws. 

The  New  York  dairymen,  as  well  as  the  dairymen  in  other  Eastern 
States,  fear  an  onslaught  upon  their  laws  which  will  break  the  hitherto 
impenetrable  barrier  and  flood  their  markets  with  the  forbiden  counter- 
feit article.  Their  fear  is  that  some  Federal  courts  may  interpret  some 
rather  ambiguous  decisions  in  the  same  way  they  were  interpreted  by 
the  court  of  appeals  of  Maryland  and  a  district  Federal  court  of  Minne- 
sota, denying  the  right  of  the  State  to  exclude  yellow  oleomargarine  in 
the  original  package.  It  is  to  forestall  any  such  a  probability  that 
State  control  is  asked,  as  in  section  1. 

But  the  very  large  majority  of  the  States  will  not,  under  present  con- 
ditions, be  at  all  benefited  by  section  1  alone.  Such  decisions  would 
have  no  effect  upon  their  laws,  because  the  violations  in  these  States  do 
not  consist  of  the  sale  of  the  article  in  the  original  package,  which 
might  be  protected  by  the  interstate-commerce  laws,  but  it  is  retailers, 
over  whom  the  State,  so  far  as  Federal  interference  is  concerned,  has 
never  been  denied  jurisdiction,  and  which  right  to  regulate  has  never 
been  questioned  by  the  judiciary. 

The  obstacle  these  States  find  to  the  enforcement  of  their  laws  is 
the  persistent,  systematic,  and  powerful  opposition  of  the  manufac- 
turers, who  regularly  appropriate  a  portion  of  their  earnings  to  cover 
legal  expenses,  and  whose  fixed  policy  it  is  to  induce  retailers  to  become 
lawbreakers  and  protect  them  against  the  prosecutions  of  the  State. 

Nothing  but  the  enactment  of  the  10-eent  tax  clause,  which  will  take 
the  abnormal  profit  out  of  the  sale  of  this  counterfieit,  will  ever  make 
it  possible  for  the  States  to  enforce  their  laws  against  dealers  in  oleo- 
margarine, as  they  would  against  violators  of  other  laws. 

DAIRY  FARMERS  DISCRIMINATED   AGAINST. 

The  chief  argument  against  our  bill  now  is  that  the  oleomargarine 
manufacturers  ought  to  have  the  same  rights  to  color  their  goods  that 
the  dairymen  enjoy ;  that  depriving  them  of  that  right  would  be  placing 
them  at  a  disadvantage  which  we  ought  not  to  do;  that  it  is  not  right 
to  make  their  goods  unattractive  by  prohibiting  the  coloring  of  them. 

The  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine,  upon  payment  of  $600  license 
fee  and  2  cents  per  pound  tax,  is  given  the  right  to  use  for  producing  a 
substitute  for  butter  a  fat  enabling  him  to  make  it  for  10  or  12  cents 
per  pound  at  the  outside,  including  the  2-cent  tax.  He  has  the  right 
to  use  a  6-cent  fat,  and  can,  if  he  chooses,  mix  butter  with  it.  The 
dairy  farmer  is  confined  by  law  to  the  use  of  butter  fat  that  can  not  be 
produced,  even  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances,  for  less  than 
12  cents  per  pound,  and  in  winter  months  the  cost  to  him  is  nearer 
18  and  20  cents  per  pound.  If  he  were  permitted  to  use  neutral  lard, 
oleo  oil,  or  cotton-seed  oil  in  his  production,  as  does  the  oleo  manufac- 
turer, he  could  make  the  cost  much  less,  and  might  make  goods  for 
10  or  12  cents  that  would  outclass  in  quality  the  oleomargarine  maker's 
goods.  In  this  way  the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  is  given  a  monop- 
oly on  the  trade  for  a  cheap  substitute,  and  restrictions  are  placed 
upon  the  dairyman  which  keep  him  out  of  the  field  and  out  of  competi- 
tion. If  he  is  to  be  barred  out  of  this  field  by  restrictions,  is  it  any 
more  than  fair  that  the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  should  be  barred 
out  of  the  field  of  pure  butter  by  some  restrictions  t  And  can  anyone 


630  OLEOMARGARINE. 

devise  restrictions  that  will  apprise  the  consumer  of  the  identity  of  the 
substitute  other  than  through  the  agency  of  color?  Wbat  we  call  the 
field  of  pure  butter  is  that  portion  of  the  consuming  public  that  calls 
for  butter  either  at  the  store  or  at  the  table.  It  is  at  the  table  where 
the  invasion  of  our  rights  is  being  carried  on.  Of  course,  it  might  be 
said  that  the  dairy  farmer  has  the  same  right  to  obtain  a  license  and 
engage  in  the  business  that  the  present  oleomargarine  manufacturer 
has.  We  answer  that  he  would  then  be  a  manufacturer  of  oleomarga- 
rine, and  not  a  dairyman.  And,  besides,  where  is  there  a  farmer,  or  a 
neighborhood  of  farmers,  that  could  afford  to  pay  $600  a  year  for  the 
privilege  of  going  into  the  business? 

ALL  MUST  ADULTERATE  OR  NONE. 

Fourteen  years  ago  the  dairymen  of  this  country  were  confronted 
with  this  crisis:  They  must  either  become  adulterators  and  meet  the 
competition  of  those  who  made  oleomargarine  without  restriction  (as 
was  the  case  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  law  of  1886),  or  they  must 
crush  out  the  counterfeit  in  order  that  they  might  deal  honestly  with 
the  public  and  preserve  their  business. 

They  chose  to  be  honest  and  force  others  to  be  the  same.  That  is 
why  they  came  to  Congress  for  the  Hatch  bill  then. 

Stop  and  consider  a  moment,  if  you  please,  that  the  dairymen  and 
creamery  men  have  all  the  facilities  for  adulterating  butter,  and  might 
with  profit  be  adulterators  if  not  forbidden  by  law.  They  chose,  how- 
ever, to  make  the  pure  article,  and  the  laws  they  secured  were  as 
restrictive  upon  themselves  as  upon  those  who  prefer  the  dishonest 
business  of  adulteration. 

Now  look  around  at  the  wholesale  butter  business.  Not  a  wholesale 
butter  dealer  in  the  city  of  Chicago  handles  oleomargarine  at  whole- 
sale. Why?  Because  they  will  not  violate  the  laws  of  their  State  and 
encourage  the  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  Government.  Every  whole- 
sale butter  man  is  as  well  qualified  to  sell  oleomargarine  as  the  oleo- 
margarine dealer.  He  sells  to  the  same  trade. 

Because  the  butter  merchant  obeys  laws  and  refuses  to  encourage 
their  violation,  his  business  is  being  ruined  by  other  merchants  who 
are  willing  to  defy  law  and  incite  violators  by  guaranteeing  protection 
in  case  of  prosecution. 

Is  it  not  an  outrage  that  the  law-abiding  citizen  should  suffer  as  a 
result  of  his  good  citizenship,  and  should  not  every  lawmaking  body 
do  everything  to  protect  those  who  respect  the  decrees  of  this  branch 
of  the  Government? 

The  dairymen  fight  for  the  preservation  of  the  purity  of  the  dairy 
product.  They  do  not  want  to  be  forced  to  become  adulterators,  as 
has  been  the  case  with  manufacturers  of  nearly  every  other  article  of 
food,  as  shown  by  Senator  Mason's  report.  They  will  fight  anybody, 
no  matter  who  he  be,  who  comes  before  the  public  with  a  counterfeit  of 
their  article  which  can  not  be  detected  by  the  unwary  consumer. 

In  whose  interest  are  they  doing  this?  Is  it  in  their  own  interest 
any  more  than  in  the  interest  of  the  public? 


MARCH  14, 1900. 
The  committee  met  at  10.30  a.  m. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  meeting  this  morning  is  for  the  purpose  of 
hearing  a  delegation  of  gentlemen  from  Philadelphia  on  the  Grout 
bill. 

(*48) 


OLEOMAKG  ARINE.  631 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  B.  F.  KIMBALL,  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the  merchants  of 
Philadelphia  believe  that  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill  would  solve  the 
oleomargarine  question,  inasmuch  as  it  strikes  at  the  foundation  of  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  by  permitting  it  to  be  sold  for  what  it  is 
and  not  in  imitation  of  butter,  which  it  is  when  it  is  colored,  so  that  it 
will  come  in  legitimate  competition  with  butter  in  that  shape. 

Mr.  LAMB.  What  would  be  the  effect  of  the  operation  of  this  law  in 
Philadelphia  on  the  retail  merchant? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  At  present  in  Philadelphia  about  nine-tenths  of  the 
oleomargarine  sold  is  sold  as  butter.  It  may  be  stamped  or  it  may  not 
be.  We  seldom  see  it  stamped.  We  simply  ask  that  they  be  com- 
pelled to  comply  with  the  law.  The  wholesalers  now  do  comply  with 
the  law. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Do  you  know  that  from  personal  knowledge? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  I  know  it  from  contact  with  customers  and  seeing  the 
product  in  the  stores.  We  have  it  in  our  store  for  examination.  We 
know  that  the  butter  trade  has  fallen  off  because  of  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine. 

Mr.  WHITE.  What  is  the  percentage  of  the  decreased  sale  of  butter 
in  consequence  of  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  It  is  fully  50  per  cent. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  In  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  there  are  11,000,000  pounds 
of  oleomargarine  sold,  and  about  nine-tenths  of  it  is  sold  as  butter. 
The  only  State  which  sells  more  is  Illinois. 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  The  butter  merchants  of  Philadelphia  are  largely 
interested  in  creamery  products,  and  have  no  objection  to  the  sale  of 
oleomargarine  itself  as  such.  They  recognize  it  as  an  article  of  com- 
merce. We  object  to  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  at  butter  prices  as 
butter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  sold  in  that  way? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  There  is  no  inducement  to  sell  oleomargarine  by  the 
retailer  unless  he  can  get  butter  prices. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  suppose  it  is  sold  at  a  slightly  less  price? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  It  is  sold  at  the  price  of  butter.  Last  week  we  had 
three  persons  convicted  for  violating  the  United  States  law.  Since  that 
time  you  can  buy  oleomargarine  cheaper.  The  price  to-day  is  20  cents. 
Before  that  the  same  man  was  selling  it  for  28  cents. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  You  say  they  are  selling  it  fraudulently.  Is  that  under 
the  State  or  Federal  law  ? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  It  is  under  the  Federal  law. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Have  you  a  State  law  ? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  We  have.  They  can  not  sell  it  except  when  it  is  un- 
colored. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  You  say  they  can  not  enforce  that  law? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  They  are  arrested  and  brought  before  magistrates. 
Last  year  the  butter  men  spent  $4,000  for  the  purpose  of  preventing 
the  sale  of  it  by  the  prosecution  of  offenders.  Two  cases  were  brought 
up  last  week  and  both  were  convicted,  but  to-day  they  are  making 
arguments  for  new  trials. 

Mr.  Co  NEY.  Have  you  spent  money  to  obtain  convictions  under  the 
State  law  1 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes,  sir.  We  had  it  down  fine  at  first,  when  the  State 
repealed  the  prohibitory  law  and  made  it  a  license  law.  Since  that 
time  we  find  we  are  able  to  prosecute  better  in  the  United  States  courts. 

(*49) 


632  OLEOMARGARINE. 

It  can  not  be  sold  if  the  people  know  what  they  are  getting.  We  can 
do  nothing  in  the  State  courts.  If  this  Grout  bill  prevails,  then  the 
retailer  will  be  obliged  to  buy  from  the  manufacturer.  If  he  obtains  it 
colored,  in  imitation  of  butter,  he  will  have  to  pay  the  tax,  which 
brings  it  up  close  to  the  price  of  butter.  As  it  is  now  it  is  in  competition 
with  butter  and  needs  regulating. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Don't  you  think  that  we  should  provide  against  the 
coloring  of  butter? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  No,  sir ;  because  butter  has  been  colored  from  time 
immemorial. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Don't  you  think  the  same  objection  obtains  against  the 
coloring  of  butter  as  obtains  against  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine'? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  All  the  white  butter  produced  to-day,  that  which  you 
see  in  the  country  stores,  is  only  used  in  making  it  over.  It  is  sold  as 
packing  stock  and  used  for  manufacturing  purposes.  The  legitimate 
butter,  much  of  it,  is  colored  yellow.  Some  people  prefer  to  have  color- 
ing matter  added.  We  do  not  want  to  speak  about  coloring  one  way 
or  another.  We  want  to  do  a  legitimate  business  and  obey  the  laws, 
and  we  want  our  customers  to  obey  the  laws,  but  dealers  will  buy 
oleomargarine  and  rewrap  it  and  sell  it  for  butter.  That  hurts  the 
butter  man  who  is  trying  to  earn  an  honest  living  in  the  sale  of  butter, 
and  it  also  hurts  the  man  who  purchases  butter. 

If  this  Grout  bill  prevails,  then  oleomargarine,  if  it  is  a  good  thing, 
and  we  admit  it  is  a  good  thing,  will  be  sold  at  a  price  to  reach  the 
poor  man,  and  it  is  intended  to  reach  him,  and  the  legimate  butter  will 
sell  at  a  price  which  the  people  are  willing  to  pay  for  it.  It  will  do 
away  with  the  practice  of  deceiving  the  customer  who  goes  into  a  store 
and  asks  for  a  pound  of  butter  and  gets  a  pound  of  oleomargarine. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Whose  fault  is  that  ?  It  is  not  the  fault  of  the  manu- 
facturer ? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  I  do  not  know.  Persons  would  not  sell  it  unless  they 
made  a  profit  out  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  say  that  you  can  not  convict  persons  under 
your  law? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  The  law  has  only  been  in  force  a  year.  The  grand 
jury  has  found  true  bills,  but  the  cases  do  not  come  up.  I  am  sorry  I 
am  not  better  posted  on  the  merits  of  this  particular  bill.  I  only  speak 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  Philadelphia  merchant.  We  are  not  speakers, 
but  simply  butter  men. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Do  you  mean  to  state  that  the  district  attorney  will  not 
enforce  the  law  ? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  want  to  give  that  impression.  We 
do  know,  however,  that  we  have  had  to  make  the  fight  ourselves. 
There  is  an  absolutely  prohibitory  law. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  In  Philadelphia  is  oleomargarine  received  in  rolls,  so  as 
to  have  the  semblance  of  dairy  butter  as  to  different  shades? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  The  bulk  of  it  is  in  the  shape  of  print  butter. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  I  mean  as  to  size.    Does  it  come  in  tubs? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes;  tubs,  rolls,  and  prints. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  That  which  comes  in  prints  or  rolls — is  it  all  of  the 
same  color,  or  are  there  different  shades  of  rolls  in  the  same  box? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  We  never  see  that  in  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  LAMB.  Is  it  marked  " oleomargarine?" 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  The  retailer  buys  it  with  the  brand  on  it,  but  after- 
wards there  is  no  mark  on  it.  That  is  a  violation  of  the  law.  If  we 
could  obtain  such  evidence  as  that  the  district  attorney  may  prosecute. 
Special  agents  of  the  revenue  department  do  not  bring  cases. 

(•60) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Since  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  has  increased  has  the 
death  rate  of  the  city  increased? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  We  do  not  know  that  there  is  anything  unhealthful 
in  oleomargarine. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  want  it  sold  for  what  it  is? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes,  sir;  we  want  it  sold  for  oleomargarine.  Under 
the  State  law  every  pound  bears  the  stamp  tax.  It  is  made  by  four  or 
five  people,  what  we  call  the  "  Big  Four.77  This  law  will  not  work  a 
hardship.  If  they  want  it  colored  and  want  to  sell  it  as  butter,  let 
them  pay  the  10  cents  tax,  and  then  there  will  be  no  difference  in  the 
price  of  the  legitimate  butter  and  the  oleomargarine,  and  there  will  be 
no  incentive  to  cheat. 

MR.  ALLEN.  What  is  the  effect  on  the  consumer? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Anyone  who  wants  cheap  butter  can  get  it  for  5  to  6 
cents  a  pound  lower  to-day. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Why  is  it  right,  or  is  it  right,  in  your  opinion,  to 
tax  oleomargarine  in  its  natural  condition,  when  not  colored  in  the 
semblance  of  anything? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Personally,  I  don't  believe  in  taxes  any  more  than 
possible.  I  do  not  believe  in  taxing  any  industry. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Can  the  manufacturer  afford  to  pay  10  cents  and  pro- 
duce it  at  a  profit? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  We  do  not  want  him  to  sell  it  as  butter. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Could  he  pay  that  tax  and  compete  with  butter? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  With  its  natural  color  oleomargarine  would  not  sell 
at  all,  because  people  would  not  buy  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  butter  is  down  to  14  cents  and  you  tax  oleo- 
margarine 10  cents,  that  would  only  leave  4  cents  for  the  manufacturer. 
Would  that  not  be  absolutely  prohibitory? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  No,  sir.  The  price  of  butter  is  very  seldom  14  cents 
in  the  country. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  sold  for  less.  I  have  seen  it  in  western  New 
York  sold  at  7  and  8  cents.  In  putting  on  this  tax,  it  would  take  off 
5  to  10  cents  of  its  value.  Suppose  butter  is  selling  at  14  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Butter  is  not  in  its  natural  state  white.  It  is  only  so 
in  the  winter  months. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  understand  that  the  best  butter  served  on  Del- 
monico's  table  is  perfectly  white. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  toniest  people  use  it. 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  The  only  coloring  used  in  butter  is  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  the  yellow  tint,  which  color  comes  from  the  fresh  grass. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  only  time  it  is  colored.  We  use  color- 
ing matter  in  our  creameries. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Uncolored  oleomargarine  would  sell  the  same  as  it  does 
now? 

Mr.  KTMBALL.  It  would. 

Mr.  WHITE.  This  resolution  would  not  affect  it  unless  it  is  colored? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  No. 

Mr.  HENRY.  I  have  a  letter  from  a  butter  dealer  in  western  New 
York,  and  he  wants  me  to  support  the  Grout  bill,  and  adds  that  the 
farmers  are  bringing  this  stuff  in  and  selling  it  for  butter. 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  That  only  goes  to  show  how  far  this  practice  obtains. 
The  hucksters  in  Philadelphia  are  the  worst  men,  and  now  the  farmer 
comes  in  with  his  good  country  butter,  but  it  is  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  matter  we  are  here  to  present  to  the  committee,  as  I 
understand  it,  and  as  Mr.  Kim  ball  has  detailed  it,  is  that  the  law 
abiding  dealer  has  always  had  to  contend  with  those  who  are  violating 

(*51) 


634  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  law.  It  is  the  experience  of  butter  dealers  everywhere  that  if  they 
undertake  to  sell  oleomargarine  for  what  it  is,  they  will  not  sell  it  at 
all.  The  working  people  who  want  cheap  goods  and  are  compelled  to 
have  it  do  not  want  oleomargarine.  It  is  sold  to  most  people  for  an 
article  which  it  is  not.  It  is  sold  under  a  misrepresentation.  With 
reference  to  the  movements  that  have  been  tried  by  the  producers  to 
protect  themselves  from  this  fraudulent  imitation — and  many  move- 
ments have  been  tried — there  does  not  seem  to  be  anything  likely  to  be 
more  effective  than  this  bill,  for  the  reason  that  they  can  not  sell  this 
thing  as  butter,  because  the  10  cents  tax  will  bring  it  up  to  the  cost 
which  is  now  paid  by  the  consumer  for  butter.  The  difference  repre- 
sented by  this  tax  now  goes  into  the  pockets  of  the  illegal  dealers. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  You  say  that  if  this  tax  is  put  on  oleomargarine  then 
there  will  be  no  sale  of  it  in  competition  with  butter? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  about  it.    They  can  not  sell  it. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  You  mean  to  say  they  can  not  sell  it  in  competition. 
They  can  sell  it  if  anybody  buys  it.  Would  not  that  virtually  mean 
the  driving  of  colored  oleomargarine  out  of  the  market  as  a  matter  of 
trade  f 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  might  be  incidental  to  the  operation  of  the  law. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  If  they  can  not  pay  this  10  cents  tax,  would  that  not 
drive  it  out  of  the  market? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Not  necessarily. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  You  do  not  believe  it  would  interfere  with  the  sale  of 
it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  Is  it  not  the  intention  of  many  who  favor  the  passage 
of  this  bill  to  drive  colored  oleomargarine  out  of  the  market? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  object,  as  I  take  it,  of  the  men  interested  in  this  is 
to  prevent  illegal  competition  with  butter — to  protect  the  law-abiding 
people.  In  Philadelphia  we  believe  that  90  per  cent  of  this  traffic  is 
done  illegally.  Of  course  that  operates  to  the  disadvantage  of  people 
who  do  business  in  a  proper  way.  For  instance,  I  am  alongside  of  a 
man  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter,  and  he  makes  an  enormous  profit, 
whereas  the  butter  seller  make  only  a  legitimate  profit. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  You  say  you  think  the  passage  of  this  bill  will  prevent 
dealing  illegally.  If  you  have  a  tax  of  10  cents,  how  will  that  prevent 
the  illegal  traffic  in  your  city  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  would  be  less  inducement  offered.  It  would  be 
that  much  accomplished.  Everything  helps  for  the  protection  of  the 
dealer  who  is  law  abiding. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  Is  not  the  object  to  drive  colored  oleomargarine  out 
of  the  market? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  We  want  to  prevent  this  illegal  traffic  which  operates  to 
the  injury  of  the  law-abiding  people  who  are  doing  a  legitimate 
business. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  The  reason  I  am  asking  this  question  is  because  a 
gentleman  who  appeared  before  the  committee  a  week  ago  to-day  said 
it  is  the  desire  of  the  butter  men  to  drive  oleomargarine  out  of  the 
market — that  they  want  to  drive  the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  out  of 
business.  I  wanted  to  find  out  whether  or  not  that  sentiment  prevails 
over  the  country. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  If  driving  it  out  would  be  incidental  to  the  operation  of 
this  law,  then  oleomargarine  would  have  to  be  sold  upon  its  merits. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  In  its  white  state? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

(*52) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


635 


Mr.  WHITE.  What  lias  been  your  observation  with  reference  to  the 
health ful ness  of  this  oleomargarine  product1? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  evidence  as  to  its  injuri- 
ous eifect  upon  consumers.  That  is  a  subordinate  matter. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  wanted  to  see  what  your  observation  had  been. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  never  heard  of  any  bad  results  from  it. 

Mr.  WHITE.  In  your  opinion,  it  is  a  healthful  product? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  So  far  as  we  know  there  is  nothing  in  it  deleterious  to 
health.  The  main  point  we  wanted  to  present  is  the  fact  that  this 
traffic  is  done  illegally,  and  that  we  think  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  if 
passed,  would  be  a  great  remedy  and  would  prevent  that  thing. 

Mr.  LORIMER  (to  Mr.  Kimball).  Do  you  know  that  the  Grout  bill 
provides  that  when  butterine  is  shipped  into  any  State  in  the  Union 
it  shall  go  in  under  the  control  of  the  State  law? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  I  do  not  know  that  that  is  in  the  bill,  but  it  would 
seem  natural  for  it  to  be  there.  The  State  should  have  police  powers 
in  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  That  is  one  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill.  You  say 
there  were  last  year  11,000,000  pounds  of  butteriue  sold  in  Pennsyl- 
vania? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes,  sir. . 

Mr.  DAVIS.  And  about  10  per  cent,  or  about  a  million  pounds,  was 
sold  as  butteriue? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  I  did  not  make  that  statement;  but  in  Pennsylvania 
oleomargarine  is  sold  and  butterine  is  sold.  My  statement  was  that 
fully  nine-tenths  of  the  oleomargarine  sold  in  Philadelphia  was  sold 
fraudulently.  In  the  western  part  of  the  State  it  is  more  openly  sold. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  You  of  course  would  not  make  that  statement  unless 
you  knew  it  to  be  true? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  No;  I  state  that  as  my  belief.  I  have  no  figures  on 
the  matter. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  Do  you  know  who  the  dealers  are  who  sell  butterine 
as  butter? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  I  could  not  specify  any.  If  I  had  knowledge  of  those 
facts  it  would  be  my  duty  to  present  them  to  the  district  attorney. 
We  go  in  and  talk  with  men  who  are  buying  our  goods,  and  we  know 
they  have  this  stuff  and  we  see  it  there. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  What  you  know  about  it  is  what  you  have  heard? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  Suppose  we  pass  this  bill — I  have  heard  it  contended 
by  butter  men  of  the  country  that  the  principal  feature  is  the  first  sec- 
tion— in  what  way  would  it  assist  you  to  prosecute  those  men  now  in 
your  State  violating  the  law? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Only  insomuch  as  the  law  would  make  oleomargarine 
shipped  into  the  State  colored  subject  to  the  State  law. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  The  first  section  simply  says  it  shall  be  under  the 
State  law,  and  what  I  wanted  to  know  is  in  what  way  it  will  benefit  you 
if  we  pass  that  section  of  this  bill? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  I  do  not  see  that  it  would  benefit  us  any  more  than 
we  have  been  benefited,  unless  it  prohibits  the  manufacturer  shipping 
it  in  except  under  the  State  requirements.  The  manufacturer  can  ship 
it  to  day. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  You  say  that  the  amount  of  butter  sold  in  your  city 
has  decreased  50  per  cent  since  oleomargarine  was  first  shipped  in.  On 
what  do  you  base  that? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Our  books  show  the  amount  our  customers  were  using 
three  or  four  years  ago  and  what  they  are  using  now. 

(*53) 


636  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  Have  you  any  statistics  that  show  how  much  butter 
has  been  sold  in  your  city  each  year  for  the  past  ten  years? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  No,  sir.  There  is  no  way  of  determining  how  much 
has  been  sold  each  .year  in  the  State. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  on  what  do  you  base  that  assertion  ? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  From  my  personal  experience.  Where  men  used  to 
buy  300  pounds,  they  do  not  to-day  buy  more  than  100. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  How  long  have  you  been  in  business  in  Philadelphia? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Twenty- one  years. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  Do  you  sell  as  much  butter  as  you  did  ten  years  ago? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  Do  you  sell  as  much  as  you  did  five  years  ago? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  How  about  two  years  ago? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  I  do  not  think  we  sell  quite  as  much  as  we  did  then. 
We  do  not  stand  still  if  we  can  help  it. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  I  simply  wanted  to  find  out  on  what  you  base  this 
estimated  decrease. 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  We  have  this  from  Mr.  Edison,  one  of  the  largest 
wholesale  print-butter  dealers  in  Philadelphia,  and  I  think  he  will  bear 
me  out  in  saying  that  the  sales  have  decreased  at  least  50  per  cent  by 
oleomargarine  being  sold  as  butter. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  I  understand  you  are  willing  to  have  oleomargarine 
shipped  in  and  sold  in  its  natural  state? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes;  I  believe  it  is  healthful.  It  is  a  good  thing  for 
the  poor  man,  but  it  should  be  sold  on  its  merits.  Where  it  is  sold  as 
butter  there  is  a  profit  of  15  cents  a  pound  on  it. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  Mr.  Adams,  who  is  secretary  of  the  Pure  Food  Asso- 
ciation of  Wisconsin,  made  the  statement  here  a  week  ago  to-day  that 
the  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  was  proposed  to  be  put  on  colored  oleo- 
margarine in  order  that  it  may  not  be  able  to  compete  with  butter,  and 
in  that  way  would  drive  oleomargarine  out  of  the  market.  Is  that 
sentiment  general  in  your  State,  or  is  there  any  sentiment  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

Mr.  KTMBALL.  I  do  not  think  so.  I  think  it  will  to  a  large  extent 
drive  colored  oleomargarine  out  of  the  market.  I  do  not  believe  that 
in  one  or  two  years  it  will  have  any  effect  for  the  reason  that  people 
who  want  the  cheap  product  will  buy  oleomargarine.  Only  colored 
oleomargarine  will  be  sold,  and  it  can  be  gotten  for  a  less  price. 

Mr.  WHITE.  What  difference  do  you  have  to  pay  between  colored 
and  uncolored  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  We  do  not  handle  it. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Only  the  fraudulent  article  is  sold  at  all? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  What  is  good  butter  quoted  at  in  Philadelphia  to-day, 
wholesale? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Twenty-seven  cents. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  That  is  what  you  pay  for  it? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  How  much  do  you  pay  for  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  We  do  not  handle  it.  The  price  of  the  oleomargarine 
sold  in  Philadelphia  is  bought  at  16  cents  a  pound.  That  is  the  popu- 
lar brand. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  There  is  practically  a  difference  of  11  cents  a  pound? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes,  sir. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  637 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Then  if  oleomargarine  is  equal  in  quality,  as  it  is  claimed 
by  its  friends,  it  could  still  be  sold  in  competition  with  butter,  even  if 
the  tax  were  10  cents? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  Yes;  on  the  present  market  price. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  What  is  the  average  price  of  butter  in  Philadelphia 
the  year  round? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  The  average  price  of  that  class  of  butter,  I  think, 
would  be  over  20  cents.  I  think  last  year  it  was  something  like  22J 
cents. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  So  that  if  butterine  costs  26  cents  a  pound  it  could 
not  be  sold  in  competition  with  butter  at  23  cents? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  No,  sir ;  it  could  not. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  What  is  the  average  price  of  butter  in  Philadelphia? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  You  can  buy  creamery  for  22  cents. 

Mr.  LORIMER.  What  does  the  retailer  pay  for  it? 

Mr.  KIMBALL.  It  is  2  cents  higher  this  year  than  it  was  formerly. 

Adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY,  March  21, 1900. 

The  subcommittee  on  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Agriculture  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  William  Lorimer 
in  the  chair. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  C.  Y.  KNIGHT,  SECRETARY  OF  THE  NATIONAL 

DAIRY  UNION. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  when 
I  was  here  two  weeks  ago  the  testimony  that  I  gave  before  the  com- 
mittee, particularly  that  in  reference  to  the  exhibits  that  I  made,  was 
published  very  conspicuously  in  all  the  Chicago  papers,  and  there  was 
a  great  deal  said  about  the  matter,  and  interviews  with  the  collector  of 
internal  revenue,  Mr.  Coyne,  were  also  published.  Last  week,  on  Fri- 
day, two  or  three  of  the  papers  came  out  with  extensive  headlines  and 
articles  regarding  the  frauds  in  oleomargarine,  and  being  inspired  by 
the  other  side,  claiming  that  there  was  not  a  great  deal  of  fraud  in 
Chicago.  I  went  into  the  Record  office — we  regard  the  Record  as  one 
of  our  most  reliable  papers — and  told  the  city  editor  that  I  did  not 
want  any  more  interviews  in  the  matter,  because  what  I  said  would 
simply  be  contradicted  the  next  day;  but  I  said,  "If  you  will  give  me 
a  reporter  for  one  day  1  will  show  you  whether  there  is  any  fraud  in 
Chicago  in  the  oleomargarine  business."  They  gave  me  the  reporter,  and 
we  went  to  three  places.  The  result  of  the  trip  to  those  three  places 
was  published  the  next  morning  there  in  the  Eecord.  With  your  per- 
mission I  will  pass  these  papers  around  [producing  a  number  of  small 
bundles].  Mr.  Haltmau,  I  believe,  is  the  name  of  the  reporter  whom  I 
had  with  me. 

I  want  to  show  you  some  of  our  experiences  at  these  same  places. 
Of  course  the  articles  that  we  purchased  together  he  took  up  to  the 
managing  editor,  to  show  him  what  he  had  found.  That  was  necessary. 
So  right  after  him.  I  sent  out  a  number  of  people  to  make  purchases  at 
the  same  places.  And  here  are  the  bundle  of  the  purchases  which  they 
made  [indicating  bundles  already  mentioned].  When  it  came  to  a 
test  of  the  matter  I  sent  a  man  into  Broadwell's,  the  same  place  where 

(*55) 


6  3  8  OLEOM  AEG  AKINE. 

I  got  the  oleomargarine  that  I  exhibited  here  once  before,  and  I  asked 
a  man  to  go  to  Broadwell's  and  buy  a  pound  of  butterine,  and  1  told 
him  to  call  for  their  very  best  butterine,  and  he  went  in  and  bought 
that  pound  of  butterine.  Here  it  is,  right  here  [holding  up  small 
package].  He  bought  that  pound  of  butterine.  They  charged  him  20 
cents  for  that  when  he  bought  it  as  butterine.  Another  man  followed 
him  in  there  ten  minutes  after  and  called  for  the  best  butter — the  best 
creamery  butter.  They  charged  him  25  cents  for  that  when  he  called  for 
the  best  creamery  butter.  There  are  the  two  samples  with  the  mark 
on  them.  I  would  lilae  to  have  some  member  of  the  committee  taste 
them. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Were  they  out  of  the  same  box? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  man  handles  nothing  but  oleomargarine,  and  if 
when  one  of  these  men  went  in  there  and  called  for  butter  he  got  some 
of  this,  and  the  other  went  in  and  called  for  butterine  and  he  got  the 
same  thing,  I  must  say  it  is  something  that  I  do  not  understand  and 
am  not  familiar  with.  I  would  say  that  the  gentleman  in  question  has 
got  an  improvement  since  the  articles  came  out  in  the  papers,  and 
instead  or  putting  the  stamp  on  the  inside  he  puts  it  on  the  outside  of 
the  package. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Was  not  this  all  published  at  the  time  of  the  pure  food 
hearing? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  it  was  all  published. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  It  is  generally  understood  that  this  fellow  is  an  oleo- 
margarine dealer? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  When  he  came  before  the  pure  food  hearing  he  stated 
himself  to  be  in  business  as  the  Stock  Yards  Provision  Company,  He 
is  not  doing  business  under  his  own  name.  No  one  knows  by  the  pub- 
lication of  William  BroadwelPs  name  that  he  is  doing  business. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  He  is  a  dealer  in  butterine,  or  in  butterine  and  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  he  handles  no  butter,  but  his  signs  say  butter. 
These  grades  are  all  the  same,  and  when  you  call  for  butter  he  charges 
25  cents  and  when  you  call  for  butterine,  20  cents.  Now,  I  tried  the 
same  thing  again.  I  sent  three  or  four  people  into  one  of  the  other 
stores  and  they  inquired  for  creamery  butter.  The  fiist  one  got  the 
price  of  20  cents,  the  second  22,  and  the  third  24  cents  for  the  best 
creamery  butter. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  use  of  paraffin  in  these 
adulterations? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  is  a  pamphlet  from  the  State  of  New  York  in 
which  they  show  up  the  paraffin  trade. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  as  to  the  healthiuluess  or  want 
of  healthfulness  in  this  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  know  nothing  about  that  from  my  own  experience. 
I  know  very  well  a  man  who  sells  oleomargarine  and  he  told  me  that 
he  ate  it  for  about  a  year  and  it  gave  him  indigestion  and  he  had  to 
quit  eating  it.  I  am  not  a  physician,  and  could  not  speak  from  that 
point  of  view. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  What  does  this  man  say,  that  sold  this  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  will  find  his  testimony  which  was  taken  before 
Senator  Mason's  committee.  I  had  him  brought  up  before  Senator 
Mason's  committee  when  Senator  Mason  was  in  Chicago  with  the  manu- 
facturers' committee  His  testimony  is  in  this  little  book.  That  is  the 
way  the  business  is  done.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  these  pack- 
ages here  of  oleomargarine  marked  as  oleomargarine  on  the  outside.  I 
would  like  to  have  these  passed  around.  (A  number  of  packages  were 

(*56) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  639 

here  passed  around  among  the  members  of  the  committee  by  Mr. 
Knight.)  This,  now,  is  another  class  of  the  fraud.  This  is  all  marked 
on  the  outside,  and  it  is  intended  as  an  evasion  of  the  oleomargarine 
law.  You  can  see  the  testimony  on  this  point  I  am  speaking  of  on  page 
31  of  this  little  pamphlet  which  I  have  here. 

Mr.  ALLEK.  Where  is  the  stamp  on  this  package  [holding  up  pack- 
age in  his  hand]  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  on  the  outside.  If  you  will  hold  that  up  between 
yourself  and  the  light  you  will  probably  find  the  mark. 

I  have  here  a  copy  of  the  revised  revenue  laws,  published  June,  1895, 
five  years  ago. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  I  still  do  not  see  this  stamp  here. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  If  you  will  look  long  enough,  you  will  find  it.  Every 
package  I  have  here,  I  possess  the  signed  statement  of  the  person  who 
bought  it  to  the  circumstances  under  which  he  bought  it.  That  wrap- 
per is  used  for  the  purpose  of  having  a  wrapper  so  near  the  color  of  the 
ink  that  is  put  on  there  that  the  people  will  not  detect  the  oleomargarine 
stamp.  The  stamp  is  on  there,  and,  knowing  that  it  is  there,  you  can 
find  a  faint  part  of  it.  1  want  to  read  this  to  you  from  these  regula- 
tions, published  five  years  ago  and  which  shows  two  things:  First,  that 
this  kind  of  fraud  has  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Internal- 
Revenue  Department  five  years  ago;  and,  second,  that  there  is  a  ruling 
against  printing  the  stamp  so  that  the  color  of  the  ink  with  which  it  is 
printed  shall  be  practically  indistinguishable.  The  law  says  that  the 
color  of  the  ink  with  which  it  is  printed  shall  be  in  the  strongest  con- 
trast to  the  paper  of  the  package. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Have  you  ever  called  the  attention  of  the  internal-reve- 
nue collector  to  this1? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  should  say  so. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  What  does  he  say? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  He  says  it  will  take  one  agent  for  every  dealer,  to  look 
after  each  dealer  in  the  retail  oleomargarine  business.  And  that  is  what 
we  say — that  so  long  as  it  is  permitted  to  go  out  as  butter  this  fraud 
can  not  be  prevented. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  I  have  heard  that  when  they  could  not  put  the  color  in 
the  oleomargarine  they  would  mix  it  with  their  butter  and  sell  it  as 
oleomargarine. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Then  they  become  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  have  never  heard  of  a  case  of  that,  because  that  would 
be  avoiding  the  internal-revenue  tax,  and  that  is  a  much  more  serious 
matter. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Mr.  Henry  B.  Kemp  wrote  me  that  it  was  true;  that 
they  would  mix  it  with  butter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  These  packages  here  [indicating  several  packages  oil 
the  table]  are  another  kind  of  evasion.  It  is  all  according  to  the  looks 
of  the  man  that  goes  in  to  buy.  If  he  looks  as  if  he  might  catch  on  to  it, 
they  don't  soak  him  so  heavy.  This  was  bought  for  the  best  creamery 
butter — all  of  these  packages  were  bought  for  butter,  none  of  them  for 
butterine.  There  was  only  the  one  case  where  we  called  for  butteriue, 
and  that  was  just  to  test  that  man  Broadwell. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  This  was  bought  for  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  the  best  creamery  butter,  and  was  bought  from 
Hughes  &  Schaick.  There  is  the  mark,  right  here  [indicating  on  pack- 
age]. It  is  a  pretty  faint  proposition,  but  it  is  there. 

Mr.  WILSON.  What  is  the  material  in  them  all? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  a  point  I  want  investigated. 

(*57) 


640  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  I  can  not  see  any  mark  on  this  package  [indicating 
package  he  held  in  his  hand]. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  it  is  not  intended  that  you  should  see  it,  but  it  is 
there. 

I  only  went  into  this  one  place  with  the  reporter  there,  but  I  could 
pile  up  this  sort  of  thing  in  any  number  of  places  until  our  money  was 
exhausted.  I  sent  a  man  out  for  72  samples.  They  were  butterine.  He 
went  around  and  got  those  72  samples  in  as  many  places. 

Now,  you  hear  a  good  deal  about  Chicago.  I  will  tell  you  why.  It 
is  because,  as  we  want  to  show  you,  the  manufacturers  are  the  men  who 
are  making  this  fight,  and  they  are  the  people  who  are  backing  these 
dealers  up,  and  it  is  right  in  Chicago  that  this  fraudulent  practice  is 
being  backed  up. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Eight  on  that  point,  Mr.  Knight.  You  make  the 
statement  that  the  manufacturers  are  backing  these  people  up  in  this 
fraud? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  do  you  know  thatt 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  know  that  by  their  letters,  in  which  they  say  that 
they  will  defend  anybody  who  is  prosecuted  under  the  State  laws,  copies 
of  which  letters  are  published  here,  and  the  originals  of  which  I  showed 
at  a  meeting  of  this  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  they  told  them  to  violate 
the  law? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  tell  them  in  this  letter,  which  is  an  answer  to  a 
letter  that  we  sent  out,  in  which  we  told  them  that  we  would  prosecute 
them  if  they  sold  butterine  for  butter,  that  they  will  protect  them  or 
back  them  up  if  they  are  so  prosecuted. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  are  those  letters? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Copies  are  right  here,  and  I  have  the  originals  in  my 
office. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  when  were  they  written? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  One  of  them  was  written  August  2,  1899 ;  the  Braun 
&  Fitz  letter  was  written  practically  the  same  date. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  stated  at  the  last  hearing  that  a  bank  of  judges 
declared  theoleo  law  in  Illinois  unconstitutional? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Not  the  law  we  prosecuted  under.  We  have  two 
cases  that  come  under  that  decision  of  the  bank.  The  third  one  gave  us 
the  best  decision  we  have  ever  had. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  was  a  bank  of  judges  that  decided  against  the 
law? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  We  have  three  laws  in  Illinois. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  that  one  you  speak  of  was  the  only  one  you 
ever  operated  under  with  any  success? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No 5  we  never  operated  with  any  degree  of  success 
under  that  one. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  simply  want  to  clear  up  the  statement  that  these 
men  a.re  backing  or  encouraging  the  violators  of  the  law.  They  merely 
say  to  them  to  go  ahead  and  sell  their  product  and  they  will  back  them 
if  they  are  prosecuted.  Now,  they  have  the  decision  of  this  bank  of 
judges  of  which  you  speak  stating  that  the  law  is  unconstitutional. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  that  is  what  they  try  to  hide  behind. 

Inasmuch  as  Mr.  Lorimer  has  tried  to  raise  this  question,  I  should 
like  to  say  that  two  or  three  years  ago — almost  three  years  ago — an 
anticolor  law  which  we  had  passed  in  the  session  of  the  legislature 
of  1897  was  held  by  a  bane  of  judges  to  be  unconstitutional,  although 

(*58) 


OLEOMAKGABIKE.  641 

the  law  of  another  State,  from  which  that  had  been  very  closely  copied, 
had  been  held  to  be  constitutional.  The  third  judge  gave  us  the  best 
decision  we  have  had  in  its  support.  But  we  dropped  that  law  entirely 
at  that  time  because  we  could  hold  no  one  under  it,  for  the  reason  that 
anybody  seized  would  be  released  immediately  under  habeas  corpus 
proceedings  upon  the  ground  that  the  law  was  unconstitutional.  So, 
in  this  situation  I  thought  of  the  old  branding  laws  which  were  dis- 
carded as  useless  years  ago,  and  we  had  found  them  useless  for  the 
purpose  at  that  time.  I  thought  of  those  old  laws  and  I  concluded  to 
try  some  prosecutions  under  them,  because  they  had  not  been  declared 
unconstitutional,  and  we  did  not  think  that  the  manufacturers  would 
dare  to  come  up  and  defend  a  man  for  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter. 
Here  is  the  letter  which  our  attorneys  sent  out  to  the  manufacturers, 
telling  them  what  we  were  going  to  do : 

OFFICE  OF  H.  V.  MURRAY,  ATTORNEY  AT  LAW, 

Chicago,  HI.,  July  29,  1899. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  have  been  employed  by  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  to  prosecute  any 
cases  of  violation  of  the  dairy  laws  of  this  State  which  may  result  from  the  arrest 
of  any  dealer  selling  oleomargarine  when  butter  is  called  for.  As  you  probably 
know,  a  commission,  consisting  of  a  food  commissioner  and  eight  assistants  and 
inspectors,  was  provided  for  by  the  late  legislature,  whose  duty  it  is  to  enforce  these 
laws.  The  commissioner  has  been  appointed,  and  until  he  has  appointed  his  assist- 
ants and  gotten  to  work  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union's  inspectors  will  look  after  the 
protection  of  consumers  of  butter,  and  see  that  those  who  sell  them  oleomargarine 
for  butter  are  prosecuted  under  the  State  laws  and  also  reported  to  the  Internal 
Revenue  Department  as  violators  of  the  internal-revenue  laws.  I  herewith  inclose 
extracts  from  three  State  laws.  These  laws  are  not  tied  up  in  the  courts,  and  the 
oleomargarine  manufacturers  will  not  place  themselves  in  the  light  of  protecting 
those  who  sell  oleomargarine  for  butter,  although  they  may  consistently  fight  the 
law  forbidding  coloring,  which  has  not  yet  been  passed  upon  by  the  supreme  court. 
If  you  sell  oleomargarine  this  year,  rest  assured  that  the  State  food  commissioner 
and  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  will  see  that  you  are  not  permitted  to  sell  it  as  butter. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

HUGH  V.  MURRAY, 
Attorney  for  Illinois  Dairy  Union. 

Now,  that  is  the  letter  that  we  sent  out  threatening  to  prosecute 
them  under  the  State  law  for  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter.  Within 
four  days  after  that  letter  was  sent  out  came  an  answer  signed  by 
William  J.  Moxley,  and  dated  on  August  2,  which  is  as  follows: 

[William  J.  Moxley,  manufacturer  of  fine  butterine,  63  and  65  West  Monroe  street.] 

CHICAGO,  August  2, 1899. 

,  City. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Our  attention  has  been  called  to  two  circulars  which  have  been  mailed 
to  you,  one  signed  by  Hugh  V.  Murray,  an  attorney,  and  the  other  by  Charles  Y. 
Knight,  editor  in  chief  of  a  periodical  without  subscribers,  named  the  Chicago 
Dairy  Produce. 

I  will  say  that  my  circular  was  simply  a  copy  of  the  laws  that  I  pro- 
posed to  act  under.  I  did  not  put  it  in  there  because  it  would  make 
four  or  five  pages  and  I  did  not  want  to  take  up  so  much  space. 

The  circular  bearing  Mr.  Knight's  name  has  at  its  head  an  imposing  lot  of  names, 
gentlemen  whose  aim  it  is  to  prevent  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine,  so  that 
the  butter  trust  might  be  enabled  to  get  from  30  to  40  cents  a  pound  for  butter, 
depriving  as  they  would  a  great  many  of  the  industrial  classes  from  being  able  to 
use  butter  through  its  excessive  price. 

That  is  to  say,  people  could  not  use  butter,  they  could  not  afford  to 
use  butter,  if  there  was  no  butterine. 

With  the  hired  attorney,  who  is  earning  his  fee,  we  have  nothing  to  say,  only  to 
inform  you  that  these  gentlemen  are  trying  to  ring  in  a  bluff.  You  will  notice  in 


Rep.  2043 41  (*59) 


642  OLEOMARGARINE. 

their  circulars  that  by  insinuations  they  would  have  people  believe  they  represent 
some  official  authority.  The  Internal  Revenue  Department  looks  after  their  own 
business  and  the  State  after  theirs,  and  should  this  so-called  Dairy  Union  interfere 
with  your  business  in  the  way  of  prosecution  as  to  the  State  laws,  we  hereby  guaran- 
tee you  protection  to  the  extent  of  paying  all  tines,  costs,  etc.,  until  the  color  law  is 
decided  unconstitutional  in  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

That  was  put  in  there  for  the  pupose  of  squaring  things  on  the  sur- 
face, as  if  they  were  protecting  them,  and  endeavoring  to  protect  them, 
against  an  anticolor  law,  whereas  at  that  time  the  anticolor  law  was 
not  an  issue. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course  you  wrote  your  letter  and  sent  it  out  to 
the  people  in  good  faith,  and  you  now  undertake  to  say  that  these 
people  wrote  their  letters  and  sent  them  out  to  their  customers,  and 
that  it  was  not  done  by  them  in  good  faith;  they  say  in  their  letter 
that  it  was  in  reference  to  the  judgment  which  was  decided  unconstitu- 
tional by  the  judges  in  Cook  County. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  endeavored  to  make  their  letters  so  to  read,  but 
we  had  quit  trying  to  enforce  the  anticolor  law,  and  threatened  now  to 
prosecute  them  for  selling  butterine  for  butter.  They  thought  their 
business  was  going  to  smash,  and  they  found  it  was  impossible  to  get 
around  and  see  1,000  or  1,500  people  in  time  to  save  their  business,  so 
this  letter  was  written,  and  so  worded  as  to  throw  people  off  from  the 
real  point  in  the  case  at  that  time.  If  you  can  find  any  instance  where 
we  have  sent  out  any  letter  threatening  to  prosecute  people  for  selling 
oleomargarine  colored,  you  have  got  me.  We  never  did  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  they  did  not  say  anything  in  that  letter  to  the 
effect  that  they  would  protect  them  from  prosecution? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Certainly  they  did.    Let  me  read  further: 

And  will  further,  on  receiving  complaint,  take  such  action  for  damages  as  will 
make  it  unpleasant  for  some  of  those  who  are  attempting  to  interfere  with  your  and 
our  own  legitimate  business. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Your  letter  had  been  directed  to  the  individuals, 
threatening  prosecutions  for  selling  colored  butteriue  for  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No;  not  colored  butterine. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Not  colored  butterine,  but  butteriue  altogether t 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Now,  what  is  your  State  law? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  State  law  provides  a  penalty  of  $250  fine  for 
people  who  sell  butterine  to  a  customer  without  at  the  same  time 
informing  him  that  it  is  butterine. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Any  reference  to  color? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No,  sir;  no  reference  to  color  whatever. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Have  you  any  law  relating  to  color? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  and  that  law  was  tied  up  in  the  courts.  These 
laws  we  speak  of  in  this  last  letter  are  not  tied  up  in  the  courts.  We 
said  so.  We  wanted  to  make  it  plain  and  clear  that  we  were  not  doing 
anything  under  the  anticolor  laws,  because  they  were  tied  up  in  the 
courts.  Now,  taking  this  letter  of  the  manufacturers  to  the  dealers, 
they  worded  it  so  that  it  might  be  supposed  we  were  threatening  prose- 
cution under  the  two  laws  that  were  tied  up,  and  without  putting  the 
two  letters  together  you  would  not  understand  it.  They  go  on  in  the 
last  paragraph : 

We  strongly  recommend  you  to  pay  no  attention  to  those  circulars.  We  have 
always  been  in  a  position  to  protect  our  customers  from  injustice  and  blackmailers — 

That  was  us,  of  course. 

and  will  be  ever  at  your  service  should  you  require  our  aid. 

(*60) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  643 

Now,  that  of  course — anybody  can  call  you  or  me  a  blackmailer,  or  can 
say  " Charles  Y.  Knight  is  the  editor  of  a  paper  without  subscribers." 

Another  firm,  Brauii  &  Fitts,  almost  as  large  a  firm  as  Moxley  (I 
believe  they  claim  to  be  larger),  about  the  same  time  sent  out  another 
letter,  in  which  they  used  tbe  following  language: 

Every  licensed  butterine  dealer  in  Chicago  has  received  circular  letters  from  the 
secretary  and  attorney  for  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union,  promising  all  sorts  of  trouble 
to  dealers  in  bntterine  (that  honest  and  pure  article  of  food). 

I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  if  you  can  find  anything  in  our  cir- 
culars that  we  sent  out  threatening  to  prosecute  anybody  for  selling 
oleomargarine  or  butterine  we  will  surrender  our  whole  case  before 
Congress.  We  did  nothing  of  the  kind,  because  we  knew  that  that 
anticolor  law  was  hopelessly  tied  up  in  the  courts. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  The  State  laws  provided  against-  the  selling  of  but- 
terine for  butter,  and  you  can  not  prosecute  them  under  the  other  law? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No,  sir.    This  letter  goes  on  to  say : 

premising  all  sorts  of  trouble  to  dealers  in  butterine  (that  honest  and  pure  article 
of  food).  Well,  now,  don't  you  believe  a  word  of  it;  there  is  a  law  against  black- 
mailing, and  we  want  now  and  here  to  go  on  record  to  the  assertion,  as  an  affidavit, 
that  we  shall  civilly  and  criminally  prosecute  any  man  or  party  of  men  interfering 
unlawfully  with  the  butterine  business  in  this  or  any  other  State. 

You,  gentlemen,  are  intelligent  enough  to  see  how  he  was  conveying 
here  the  idea  that  he  wanted  to  convey,  and  at  the  same  time  not  lay- 
ing himself  liable  to  the  charge  of  protecting  some  one  that  was  vio- 
lating the  law. 

We  know  exactly  where  we  stand;  we  are  properly  advised  on  the  subject,  and 
now  we  make  you  a  "fair  offer" — handle  our  goods  as  you  always  have. 

That  is,  "sell  our  goods  for  butter  as  you  always  have,"  and  that  is 
what  they  always  have  done  in  Chicago. 

We,  in  turn,  promise  and  guarantee  full  protection  against  the  State  law — 

They  thought  they  were  very  cute,  now,  in  saying  u  declared  uncon- 
stitutional," thereby  leading  the  dealers  to  suppose  that  these  laws  had 
been  declared  unconstitutional. 

(which  has  been  declared  unconstitutional)  to  the  extent  of  paying  cost  of  prosecu- 
tion, fines,  and  paying  all  costs  pertaining  thereto.  In  declaring  the  law  unconsti- 
tutional one  of  the  judges  stated  to  the  effect  '-'that  the  butter  ring  were,  in  his 
opinion,  liable  to  prosecution  to  recover  damages  done  an  honest  industry."  Fair 
enough,  isn't  it?  lienew  your  efforts,  and  be  assured  that  we  will  be  prepared  to 
fight  any  number  of  rounds  in  any  kind  of  a  legal  fight  to  the  finish.  Handle  our 
butterine  and  be  safe. 

Now,  there  was  no  call  for  those  letters  unless  they  were  protecting 
the  dealers  from  prosecution  for  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter.  If 
we  could  have  prevented  that  we  would  have  cut  down  the  sales  of 
the  article  25  per  cent  in  Chicago.  We  went  ahead  and  did  prosecute, 
and  I  will  show  you  what  we  went  up  against  when  we  prosecuted 
those  people.  We  prosecuted  these  same  people  named  right  here. 
We  brought,  I  think,  seventeen  cases  in  all  that  cost  us  $120;  that  is, 
for  chemists'  analyses  and  witness  fees.  We  did  not  stop  at  those 
seventeen  cases,  but  we  had  cases  against  about  200  people,  which  cost 
us  for  witnesses,  for  collecting  evidence,  and  appearing  in  court  $312.10. 
Our  attorneys  we  paid  $570;  stenographers  for  reporting  trial,  $57.80; 
court  costs,  warrants,  etc.,  $59.90;  printing  briefs,  stationery,  copies  of 
laws,  circulars,  etc.,  $414.43;  traveling  expenses  to  supreme  court,  for 
going  out  there,  $54.90;  and  for  postage  $71,  which  makes  a  total  cost 
of  $1,670.13. 

(*61) 


644  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  May  I  ask  how  much  the  postage  on  the  letters 
you  sent  out  to  these  dealers  threatening  to  prosecute  them  cost  you? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  remember;  that  was  not  included  in  this. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  How  was  that  money  raised? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  All  the  money  we  have  spent  on  this  work  has  been 
subscribed  by  24,000  farmers,  in  50-cent  subscriptions. 

Mr.  WADSWORTH.  By  the  creameries? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  No,  sir;  by  the  farmers  themselves;  and  I  can  give  you 
the  list  of  these  farmers  who  have  subscribed  50  cents  each  for  this 
purpose. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Some  of  them  gave  more  than  a  dollar. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  yes;  some  of  them  may  have  given  $1,000,  but 
24,600  of  them  have  contributed  50  cents  each.  We  have  not  asked 
any  creameries  to  contribute.  The  people  who  have  supplied  the  money 
and  subscribed  for  this  work,  I  would  have  you  understand,  are  the 
horny-handed,  horny-fisted  farmers  who  milk  the  cows. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  the  result  of  that  decision  ? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  We  submitted  the  test  case  to  Justice  Underwood,  and 
Eoy  West  defended  the  case.  He  suggested  that  these  laws  had  been 
repealed  by  the  pure-food  law  and  the  creation  of  the  Pure  Food  Com- 
mission to  enforce  it.  The  judge  took  his  view  of  it,  and  the  result  was 
that  he  dismissed  all  the  cases,  and  they  had  a  statement  sent  out 
through  the  county  and  throughout  the  State  that  Justice  Underwood 
had  decided  the  case  in  that  way,  and  the  result  was  we  could  not  get 
anyone  to  issue  warrants  for  the  arrest  of  anyone.  They  never  denied 
that  oleomargarine  was  sold  for  butter.  We  went  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  then,  and  endeavored  to  get  a  writ  of  man- 
damus to  compel  the  supreme  court  to  issue  warrants. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  which  you  have  shown  here  is  undoubtedly  a 
violation  of  the  law,  but  how  do  you  expect  to  prevent  it  by  the  passage 
of  this  bill? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  If  this  bill  becomes  a  law,  the  manufacturer  then  will 
make  it  according  to  law,  which  he  does  not  do  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  do  you  expect  to  prevent  this  violation  of  the 
law? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  If  a  man  pays  the  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  it  will 
remove  his  reason  for  violating  the  law. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  he  pays  the  10  cents  a  pound,  you  do  not  care 
whether  he  violates  the  law  or  not? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  know  that  he  will  not.  A  man  does  not  go  out  and 
cheat  another  man  unless  he  is  going  to  make  some  gain.  The  gain  in 
this  case  is  between  what  he  can  buy  oleomargarine  for  and  what  he 
can  buy  butter  for.  One  he  can  buy  for  13  cents  a  pound  and  the 
other  for  23  cents,  and  he  can  sell  them  both  at  the  same  price  as  long 
as  no  one  knows  the  difference. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  idea  is  to  tax  him  8  or  10  cents  a  pound  on 
the  color,  so  that  when  it  is  sold  it  must  of  necessity  be  sold  at  8  or  10 
cents  a  pound  more  than  it  is  to-day;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  My  point  is  that  when  a  colored  oleomargarine,  which 
is  prohibited  in  32  States,  is  sold  that  it  must  be  sold  for  8  cents 
a  pound  more  than  it  is.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  necessity  for  a 
colored  oleomargarine  being  sold. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  other  words,  you  increase  the  price  of  one  of  the 
necessary  articles  of  life? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  no  more  so  than  whisky. 

(*62) 


OLEOMAKG  ARTISTE.  645 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  the  same  necessity  for  putting  this  addi- 
tional 8  cents  on  this  article  that  there  was  for  putting  a  tax  on 
whisky?  Is  this  a  luxury? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  a  luxury  if  people  pay  18  cents  a 
pound  for  it  instead  of  12. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Will  that  not  virtually  drive  it  out? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  prohibited  now.  All  those  States  prohibit  traffic 
in  it,  but  the  10  cents  profit  is  an  incentive  for  people  to  violate 
the  law. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Why  do  they  sell  it? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  find  that  so  long  as  it  is  an  exact  counterpart  in 
appearance  of  butter  that  they  can  sell  it  and  make  this  large  profit. 
You  understand,  gentlemen,  that  it  is  the  coloring  of  it  that  we  wish 
to  prohibit.  The  oleomargarine  that  is  under  discussion  here  is  col- 
ored oleomargarine,  and  it  is  prohibited  in  32  States.  Now,  if  the  State 
has  made  that  kind  of  law  prohibiting  that  kind  of  thing,  it  is  for  the 
purpose  of  protecting  the  consumer. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Is  it  a  fact  that  it  does  hurt  the  consumer?  Does  it 
not  really  protect  the  man  who  makes  the  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  protects  the  consumer  and  makes  it  possible  for  him 
to  get  oleomargarine  when  he  wants  it  and  butter  when  he  wants  it. 
In  the  city  of  Chicago  the  city  is  overrun  with  people  selling  oleomar 
garine  for  butter,  and  for  10  or  15  cents  a  pound  more  than  it  ought  to 
be  sold  for.  Every  man  who  buys  butter  is  not  a  chemist,  and  if  they 
want  oleomargarine,  they  should  buy  it  for  the  oleomargarine  price — 
12  or  13  cents  a  pound.  The  only  reason  that  they  pay  20  cents  is  that 
they  think  it  is  butter. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  It  is  wrong  for  anything  to  float  around  under  a  false 
color,  because  that  would  be  a  fraud.  But  since  your  own  Statx5  has 
undertaken  to  protect  its  own  individual  citizens  under  its  own  law 
and  can  not  do  it,  why  is  the  necessity  of  coming  to  Congress  for  it? 

Mr.  LAMB.  What  is  the  law?  The  law  of  Virginia — the  anticolor 
law — is  as  follows: 

The  manufacture  or  sale  of  any  article  made  wholly  or  partly  from  any  fat  or  oil 
not  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream,  which  is  in  imitation  of  pure  yellow 
butter,  is  prohibited;  but  oleomargarine,  butterine,  or  kindred  compound,  made  in 
such  form  and  sold  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character, 
and  free  from  color  or  other  ingredient  to  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,  is  permitted. 
Signs,  with  the  words  "Imitation  butter  used  here,"  shall  be  displayed  in  eating 
places,  bakeries,  etc.,  where  the  articles  above  named  are  used. 

That  is  a  system  which  it  seems  to  me  they  ought  to  be  compelled  to 
follow,  because  you  can  not  get  the  stuff  to  see  it,  and  you  can  not  tell 
whether  it  is  butter  or  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  You  have  got  to  attack  the  manufacturers.  We  have 
got  to  go  to  the  fountain  head.  You  have  got  to  press  every  opening. 
It  is  just  like  it  is  with  a  band  of  counterfeiters  who  are  flooding  the 
country  with  counterfeit  money,  you  will  have  to  go  out  over  the  coun- 
try and  find  the  counterfeiters  before  you  can  stop  the  spread  of  the 
counterfeit  money.  You  can  not  stop  it.by  merely  arresting  and  prose- 
cuting the  people  in  whose  possession  you  find  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes;  but  you  can  go  to  the  retailer  and  take  that  10 
cents  a  pound  incentive  out  of  his  way,  so  that  he  will  not  find  it 
exceedingly  profitable,  as  he  does  at  present,  to  sell  the  stuff  at  all.  As 
it  is,  you  would  have  to  go  in  and  tap  every  tub  of  butter  or  butterine 
that  was  sold  in  order  to  find  out  what  it  was.  You  take  a  tub  of  but- 
terine, and  with  that  profit  on  it  it  will  bring  him  in  $6  of  profit,  and 
he  will  sell  that  out  in  one  or  two  days. 


646  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  There  could  be  no  question  about  a  man's  finding  the 
mark  on  any  package  you  have  shown  to  me  this  morning,  and  with 
the  publicity  that  you  have  given  to  it  I  should  think  they  would  not 
find  it  pro li table  and  people  would  not  buy  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  We  can  not  interest  you  people  365  days  in  the  year, 
and  we  can  not  keep  the  newspapers  going  all  the  time.  We  have  tried 
to  control  this  question  of  color  for  twenty  years',  and  we  have  failed, 
and  it  is  growing  worse  and  worse  all  the  time.  Gentlemen  suggest 
how  it  might  be  done  this  way  or  the  other  way,  but  I  tell  you  we  have 
made  the  trial,  and  the  result  is  we  have  lost,  and  we  have  exhausted 
absolutely  every  means  at  our  command;  and  here  is  a  point  that  I 
want  to  impress  upon  you  gentlemen,  that  we  have  fought  this  fight 
and  kept  fighting  and  fighting  all  the  time  until  our  people  are  good 
and  tired.  Pretty  soon  butter  is  going  to  get  down  to  the  basis  of  lard 
and  tallow,  and  it  is  not  good  to  fight  all  the  time,  and  we  will  have  to 
give  it  up  eventually.  Farmers  are  losing  confidence  and  losing 
heart 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Is  not  that  .contrary  to  the  evidence  that  Governor 
Ford  gave  here  the  other  day,  to  the  eftect  that  this  industry  has 
increased  more  than  any  other  in  the  country  to-day? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Let  me  show  you  this  diagram  here  [referring  to  dia- 
gram on  page  14  of  pamphlet].  This  will  give  you  some  idea  of  the 
results  that  have  followed  from  this  defiance  of  the  State  laws.  In 
1899  the  production  of  oleomargarine  was  increased  50  per  cent  over 
that  of  1898. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  How  much  cheaper  is  the  butter? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  can  not  answer  that  question  without  explaining. 
The  prices  of  butter  were  so  low  during  that  year,  and  oleomargarine 
was  crowding  it  so  close,  and  so  many  farmers  went  out  of  the  busi- 
ness and  gave  it  up  during  last  year  and  the  year  before,  that  there 
was  a  shortage  in  the  butter  production,  which  the  statistics  will  show. 
That  made  a  shortage,  so  that  last  winter  it  gave  the  oleomargarine  a 
chance  to  go  further  in  still,  and  drive  out  the  butter  more  and  more, 
as  it  is  doing  all  the  time. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Suppose  this  bill  should  pass,  it  would  drive  oleomar- 
garine up  to  the  price  where  it  would  sell  for  8  cents  higher  than  it 
does  now,  so  that  it  would  almost  drive  the  colored  part  out  of  business. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir;  almost. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Would  it  not  drive  butter  out? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  has  not  a  man  the  right  to  the  best  price  he  can 
get  for  what  he  has  to  sell  ? 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Yes,  sir;  and  there  was  at  common  law  the  name  of  a 
crime  given  to  this  kind  of  embracery,  where  a  man  would  take  pos- 
session of  a  business  and  raise  the  prices  on  the  consumers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  say  a  man  has  to  get  the  best  price  he  can  for 
what  he  has  to  sell? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  Congress  has  a  right  to  legislate  so  as 
to  make  one  article  higher  and  another  article  lower,  or  to  drive  it  out 
of  the  market? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  think  Congress  has  any  business  to  look  into 
that  phase  of  the  matter  at  all.  I  think  Congress  should  look  out  for 
protecting  the  consumer  and  the  health  of  the  consumer. 

(Thereupon,  at  12.45  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned.) 


OLEOMARGABIKE.  647 

SATURDAY,  March  24, 1900. 

The  Committee  on  Agriculture  this  day  met,  Hon.  James  W.  Wads- 
worth  in  the  chair. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JAMES  HEWES,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  PRO- 
DUCE EXCHANGE  OF  BALTIMORE  AND  VICE-PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
NATIONAL  DAIRY  UNION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  MARYLAND. 

Mr.  HEWES  said : 

I  was  going  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  there  are  two 
classes  of  audiences  to  whom  it  is  pretty  hard  to  speak.  One  is  an 
audience  of  children  and  the  other  is  an  audience  confessedly  at  vari- 
ance with  the  ideas  of  the  speaker,  and  I  am  now  speaking  to  these 
latter 

Mr.  ALLEN.  How  do  you  know  that? 

Mr.  HEWES.  From  what  I  have  heard  you  gentlemen  say. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  all  amenable  to  reason. 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  hardly  hope  to  convince  you,  and  I  only  want  to  speak 
a  few  words,  particularly  for  the  first  clause  of  this  bill — the  first  sec- 
tion of  this  bill,  known  as  the  Grout  bill.  You  will  pardon  me  if  I  recall 
a  little  history  connected  with  the  oleomargarine  legislation  in  the 
Houses  of  Congress,  as  well  as  in  the  States.  I  began  to  fight  against 
oleomargarine  twenty- two  years  ago.  I  wrote  the  first  law  which  was 
passed  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  at  that  time  we  wanted  to  regu- 
late the  sale  of  oleo  because  we  did  not  fully  appreciate  the  effect  of 
the  introduction  of  it,  which  at  that  time  was  only  supposed  to  be  a 
plaything. 

Oleo,  as  you  know,  was  the  outgrowth  of  a  necessity  at  the  time  of 
the  siege  of  Paris,  and  when  it  was  introduced  here  and  went  into  the 
Patent  Office,  and  the  inventor  received  the  patent  for  making  it,  no 
one  supposed  it  was  ever  to  be  an  attack  upon  the  butter  interests 
of  the  State  and  be  of  such  great  importance  as  it  has  grown  to 
be;  no  one  did.  Therefore  we  had  regulating  laws  throughout  the 
country,  and  we  tried  to  regulate  the  sale  and  tried  to  compel  them  to 
sell  oleo  for  what  it  was;  but  it  was  sapping  the  morals  of  the  country, 
and,  as  one  of  the  Commissioners  of  Agriculture  here  said  before  the 
committee  in  1886 — he  spoke  altogether  as  to  the  morale  of  the  sub- 
ject—he said  it  was  corrupting  the  morals  of  the  people,  and  we  veri- 
fied his  statement,  because  we  could  see  in  Maryland  women  and  chil- 
dren out  on  the  street  selling  this  stuff',  and  when  they  were  arrested 
for  selling  and  asked  where  they  obtained  it,  who  sent  them  there,  they 
did  not  know  anything  about  it,  and  we  would  have  to  let  them  go.  If 
they  were  successful  and  were  not  arrested  those  people  would  come 
in  and  take  the  proceeds  of  the  sales,  and  so  it  went  on  until  the  year 
1886,  when  we  appeared  here  for  the  purpose  of  having  Congress  exer- 
cise its  police  supervision,  and  of  course  we  could  only  come  to  Con- 
gress and  ask  for  a  revenue  measure,  and,  as  the  late  lamented  Mr. 
Dingley  said  to  me  only  a  year  or  two  ago,  "Mr.  Hewes,  you  know  well 
enough  that  was  a  ruse  of  yours  to  get  this  thing  into  Congress  under 
the  head  of  a  police  measure  by  drawing  a  revenue  to  the  Government," 
but  we  knew  what  we  were  talking  about. 

We  said  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  "If  you  will  impose 
this  tax  for  the  purpose  of  a  revenue  provision,  which  is  always  jealous 
and  seeking  where  it  can  find  something  to  put  into  the  Treasury;  if  you 
will  do  that,  then  we  believe  these  people  will  be  deterred  from  doing 

("05) 


648  OLEOMARGARINE. 

what  is  wrong,  and,  incidentally,  if  you  act  as  policemen,  why  that  will 
be  to  the  benefit  of  the  country,  and  particularly  to  these  States  we 
represent  here."  It  was  thought  at  that  time  that  if  the  internal- 
revenue  department  did  its  duty,  as  it  had  always  done — we  were 
proud  of  what  the  internal-revenue  department  had  done  with  respect 
to  other  things,  particularly  tobacco  ;  no  man  could  buy  a  carat  of 
tobacco  and  put  out  less  than  the  carat  would  produce  in  cigars  with- 
out being  liable  to  investigation  and  fine,  so  we  were  thinking  here  the 
internal-revenue  department  of  the  United  States  would  compel  these 
people  to  do  what  the  States  were  powerless  to  do.  That  was  to  put  a 
label  upon  the  article  when  they  would  sell  it,  so  the  people  might  be 
apprised  of  what  they  were  getting  and  buying. 

If  you  gentlemen  will  examine  the  law  of  1886  you  will  find  that  there 
were  practically  two  or  three  revenue  sections,  and  there  are  21  sec- 
tions, all  told,  in  the  bill.  It  has  been  our  misfortune  to  note  what  Mr. 
Knight  told  you  a  few  moments  ago,  that  the  revenue  officers  unfortu- 
nately did  not  attend  to  the  police  part  of  this  law,  which  is  the  greater 
part  of  the  law.  And  I  will  tell  you  my  experience  in  the  State  of 
Maryland  has  been  this :  I  hate  to  talk  about  myself,  but  I  have  been 
largely  instrumental  in  prosecuting  offenders  in  both  courts.  I  am 
attorney  at  law  in  addition  to  all  these  others;  I  am  a  sort  of  Pooh  Bah 
of  the  butter  trade;  I  have  not  only  written  laws  for  the  State  of 
Maryland  but  prosecuted  offenders  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of 
Maryland,  and  I  have  been  also  engaged  in  the  prosecution  of  offenders 
under  the  act  of  1886  in  the  United  States  courts  up  to  a  certain  time, 
and  all  of  the  cases,  I  may  say — with  two  exceptions — all  cases  coming 
out  of  the  district  court  of  the  United  States  for  the  district  of  Mary- 
land in  our  city  have  been  cases  that  have  been  furnished  to  the  Gov- 
ernment by  the  butter  men,  by  the  State  officers,  and  it  was  my  custom 
and  my  pleasure  to  take  those  cases  simultaneously  into  both  courts, 
and  at  that  time  offenders  under  the  law  were  punished  by  both  gov- 
ernments, and  that  thing  continued  until  the  state  of  affairs  that  I  am 
now  about  to  speak  of,  with  regret,  took  place ;  and  as  I  told  Secretary 
Wilson  the  other  day,  it  is  a  misfortune — it  is  deplorable  and  a  lament- 
able fact — that  when  the  method  of  paying  district  attorneys  changed 
from  the  commission  to  salary,  that  minute  prosecutions  ceased  and 
there  has  not  been  one  case  brought  into  the  court  of  the  city  of  Balti- 
more for  the  district  of  Maryland  emanating  and  arising  from  the 
Government. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Who  is  the  district  attorney  there  now  who  has  failed 
to  prosecute  since  the  change  of  the  law? 

Mr.  HE  WES.  Not  one  prosecution  has  been  had.  Now,  who  are  our 
district  attorneys  is  a  matter  of  history. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  I  mean  the  one  who  now  holds  that  office. 

Mr.  HEWES.  It  is  Mr.  Eose,  Mr.  John  C.  Rose  is  the  present  district 
attorney  in  Baltimore.  Prior  to  Mr.  Rose's  incumbency  Mr.  Marbury 
was  the  district  attorney,  and  prior  to  that 

Mr.  ALLEN.  It  does  not  matter  about  that. 

Mr.  HEWES.  Now,  I  want  to  emphasize  this  fact,  because  this  is 
only  incidental;  it  is  only  leading  up  to  what  I  want  to  talk  about — why 
we  want  this  commerce  clause  of  the  Constitution  limit  as  to  oleo- 
margarine— but  at  the  same  time  it  is  interesting.  I  will  relate  a  con- 
versation which  occurred  between  myself  and  the  district  attorney  for 
the  district  of  Maryland  only  a  short  time  before,  when  he  was  inducted 
into  his  office.  I  went  over  to  him  with  a  case  and  I  stated  to  him, 
"Mr.  Rose,  I  want  you  to  prosecute  an  offender  under  the  act  of  1886 

(*66) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


649 


for  the  selling  of  oleomargarine  without  conforming  to  the  requirements 
and  the  regulations  which  have  been  made  under  the  law,  as  everybody 
knows,  who  has  anything  to  do  with  the  prosecution  of  offenders  under 
that  act."  "What  are  the  facts?"  Mr.  Eose  asked.  I  said,  "The  facts 
are  these:  Snyder,  who  has  a  special- tax  stamp  from  the  internal- 
revenue  department  to  sell  oleomargarine,  has  sold  to  one  of  our  offi- 
cers, in  the  presence  of  another  one,  a  piece  of  oleo  without  conforming 
to  the  requirements  of  the  law,  and,  of  course,  in  violation  of  the  State 
law,  and  I  want  to  know  what  you  are  going  to  do  about  it?" 

"Well,"  he  said,  "how  do  you  know  that  he  did  that  willfully?"  I 
said,  " Is  that  your  answer  to  me,  Mr.  Eose? "  He  said,  "  Yes."  I  said, 
"That  ends  it;  that  terminates  the  interview;  good  day,  sir."  How 
did  1  know  he  did  it  willfully,  when  a  man  had  a  special  stamp  for  sell- 
ing oleo,  and  when  he  sold  the  oleo  and  the  facts  could  be  substantiated 
that  he  did  it;  what  more  knowledge  are  you  going  to  fasten  upon  a 
man  than  that?  How  can  you  tell;  how  can  anybody  say  that  he  knew 
that  this  was  oleo  except  from  the  circumstances?  What  other  way 
for  you  to  prove  the  facts?  Oftentimes  the  strongest  proof  you  can 
adduce  is  but  circumstances.  But  it  has  been  stated  by  one  of  the  wise 
judges  in  Pennsylvania,  in  charging  the  constables  there  as  to  their 
duties  under  the  law  of  the  State,  that  when  a  person  has  been  found 
with  a  special  tax-stamp  that  is  to  be  considered  prima  facie  evidence 
that  he  is  selling  oleomargarine,  and  to  report  the  case  to  the  grand  jury. 

You  do  not  have  to  have  any  more  facts  than  that  he  is  selling  oleo, 
and  when  we  bring  witnesses  to  them  and  show  them  by  those  witnesses 
that  that  is  oleo,  we  always  follow  that  up  by  giving  a  chemical  analysis 
of  the  article.  That  is  sufficient  for  any  district  attorney  to  proceed 
upon.  I  have  been  to  see  Mr.  Wilson  and  have  stated  about  it,  and 
prior  to  Mr.  Wilson's  incumbency  of  this  office  I  was  here  and  saw  the 
other  incumbent  and  stated  that  there  were  no  prosecutions  at  this  time, 
when  prior  to  that  we  used  to  have  sometimes  in  the  city  of  Baltimore, 
with  no  more  offenses  than  are  being  committed  now,  as  high  as  20  to 
30  cases  coming  out  of  the  district  court  for  violations  of  the  national 
law  and 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  attribute  that  entirely  to  the  difference  in 
the  method  of  paying  district  attorneys? 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  stated  that  was  a  lamentable  coincidence;  I  do  not 
want  to  attribute  it  to  anything,  but  it  is  a  deplorable  condition  of 
affairs. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  we  had  fees  they  prosecuted  these  cases,  and 
now  they  have  salaries  they  neglect  them? 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  can  only  tell  you  what  occurred,  and  it  is  just  as  I 
state,  and  I  deplore  that  state  of  affairs.  I  am  not  going  to  impute 
anything  to  anybody,  but  1  simply  give  you  the  statement  of  the  facts, 
which  can  be  verified.  You  could  go  to  the  records  of  the  district 
court  of  the  city  of  Baltimore  and  find  what  prosecutions  have  been 
had  of  oleo  offenders. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  about  the  other  prosecutions ;  does  the  same 
thing  apply  as  in  this? 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  would  not  like  to  say  one  word  about  anything  else. 
This  I  do  know.  The  question  was  asked  me  this  morning,  "Are  the 
two  branches  of  the  Government  there  in  perfect  harmony?"  And  I 
said,  "I  rather  think  not,  unless  it  is  a  recent  state  of  affairs,  because 
it  is  generally  considered  that  the  revenue  branch  of  the  Government 
and  the  judicial  branch  of  the  Government  are  not  in  perfect  harmony 
in  the  United  States  building." 

(*67) 


650  OLEOMARGARINE. 

A  BYSTANDER.  I  would  like  to  ask  if  the  two  cases  we  read  in  the 
press  of  to-day  on  the  train  were  not  an  exception  to  the  rule? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Yes;  I  have  not  come  to  that  point  yet.  I  want  to  say 
I  was  going  to  follow  that  right  np  by  stating  that  there  were  two  cases 
to-day  reported  from  Cumberland.  Now,  when  the  Plumley  case,  which 
is  the  case  that  was  decided  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
and  reported  in  155 — when  that  case  was  decided  it  was  supposed  we 
would  not  need  any  further  legislation  on  the  subject,  that  then  the  State's 
right  to  legislate  on  this  subject  was  recognized  as  a  valid  exercise  of 
the  police  power  of  the  State  and  would  be  supported  in  every  instance, 
and  when  we  came  down  here  and  asked  for  the  passage  of  the  Hill 
bill  and  the  Grout  bill  before,  we  were  met  with  the  objection  in  the 
House  and  in  the  Senate,  "  Have  not  you  enough  law  in  the  opinion  of 
Justice  Harlan  in  the  Plumley  case?"  and  we  said,  "Yes;  we  would 
have  enough  law  but  for  the  fact  that  the  personnel  of  the  Supreme 
Court  is  liable  to  change,  and  will  change  in  all  human  probability,  and 
then  we  do  not  know  how  it  is  going  to  be.7'  Now,  our  fears  were  veri- 
fied in  the  Scholleuberger  case;  and  when  Justice  Peckham  delivered 
his  opinion  and  declared  in  that  opinion 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  is  it  reported! 

Mr.  HEWES.  171  U.  S.,  p.  1.  When  he  declared  that  that  was  not 
reversal  of  a  decision  in  the  Plumley  case,  Justice  Gray  arid  Justice 
Harlan  filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  showing  it  certainly  did  overturn  the 
law  in  that  case;  and  what  was  the  consequence?  The  consequenc 
has  been  that  there  have  been  varying  interpretations  of  the  Schollen 
berger  case  now  going  on  over  the  United  States.  Only  recently  two 
habeas  corpus  cases,  one  in  Missouri  and  the  other  in  Minnesota,  were 
decided,  different  cases;  and  the  judge  said  in  those  cases  that  they 
were  at  variance;  and  the  most  remarkable  thing  of  all,  Judge  Lochren, 
in  the  Minnesota  case,  has  always  been  a  friend  to  butter  and  has  in  all 
his  decisions  heretofore  decided  rather  in  favor  of  butter  and  against 
oleo  until  that  time,  and  he  said,  "  I  am  confronted  by  the  opinion  in  the 
Schollenberger  case,"  and  discharged  the  petitioner.  On  the  other 
hand,  Judge  Adams,  in  the  Missouri  case,  stated  that  the  Schollen- 
berger case  did  not  overturn  the  opinion  of  the  Plumley  case,  and  he 
would  be  be  bound  by  the  Plumley  case. 

In  our  own  court  of  appeals  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  in  the  Fox 
case,  tried  since  the  Schollenberger  case  was  decided,  the  opinion  from 
Judge  Fowler  simply  stated  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  court  that 
under  existing  law  since  the  Schollenberger  opinion  had  been  delivered 
it  was  impossible  to  prevent  the  introduction  into  a  State  of  an  original 
package  of  pure  oleo,  but,  he  said,  the  State  having  made  its  prima  facie 
case,  the  burden  shifts  from  the  defendant  to  show  that  the  article  was 
not  deleterious  to  health.  How  has  that  been  construed?  There  are 
45  cases  hanging  up,  criminal  cases,  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  and  four 
or  five  of  them  original-package  cases,  and  the  city's  attorneys  do  not 
attempt  to  do  anything;  they  will  not  do  anything,  because  they  are 
satisfied  that  when  they  go  to  the  court  of  appeals  it  will  be  impossible 
for  the  State  to  make  a  case,  and  they  do  not  want  to  try  to  make  a 
case. 

That  is  one  of  the  principal  reasons  why  we  want  a  commerce  clause 
limit  in  respect  to  oleomargarine,  so  that  we  may  be  able  to  meet  this 
article  upon  our  borders  with  our  laws,  meet  them  there  and  say,  "You 
can  not  introduce  your  stuff  into  this  State  because  we  do  not  want  it." 
Let  it  be  as  good  as  it  may,  let  the  article  be  just  as  wholesome  as  Mr. 
Allen  suggested,  let  the  stuff  be  melted  in  the  human  stomach,  although 
I  have  heard  that  oleo  was  not  melted  under  such  temperature,  let  oleo 


OLEOMARGARINE.  651 

be  all  tli at  it  is  claimed  to  be,  and  yet  I  will  tell  you  our  experience  in 
twenty  two  years  in  the  State  of  Maryland  shows  you  can  not  regulate 
the  selling  of  oleo  so  as  to  prevent  the  consumer  from  being  deceived, 
and  that  is  the  reason  why  I  think  that  this  tax  ought  to  be  raised  to  10 
cents  and  it  is  a  fair  proposition. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Let  me  ask  you,  to  get  your  views,  do  you  think  that 
ought  to  be  done  with  a  view  of  prohibiting  the  manufacture  of  butterine 
altogether? 

Mr.  HEWES.  With  a  view  of  prohibiting  all  manufacture  of  oleo  yellow 
unless  they  want  to  pay  the  penalty ;  it  is  to  tax  that  yellow  color.  There 
is  not  a  soul  who  would  see  uncolored  oleo  who  would  be  deceived. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Do  you  think  that  if  you  require  them  to  make  and  sell 
it  in  the  natural  color  your  natural-colored  butterine  could  find  a  sale 
upon  the  market? 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  am  almost  sure  it  could,  and  to  show  the  fairness  of 
this  proposition  it  says  to  them,  "If  you  will  make  this  oleo  uncolored 
we  will  reduce  the  tax  to  a  quarter  of  a  cent  a  pound."  This  bill  of  Mr. 
Grout  says,  "Do  right,  be  fair,  make  your  oleo  in  just  whatever  color  it 
can  be  without  the  introduction  of  yellow  color  and  we  will  reduce  the 
tax  to  one-fourth  of  a  cent."  Now  you  say  to  us,  "Are  you  in  any 
position  here  to  come  and  take  this  revenue  from  the  Government?" 
How  did  this  revenue  get  to  the  Government  except  by  our  efforts? 
We  reposed  this  trust  in  the  United  States,  may  it  please  the  chairman 
and  gentlemen  of  this  committee,  we  reposed  this  trust  in  the  United 
States.  We  said,  "If  you  will  put  it  under  your  close  supervison,  such 
and  such  will  be  the  result;  we  will  give  you  a  million  and  a  half  dollars 
of  revenue,  and  we  ask  you  simply  to  act  as  policemen;"  and  they  are 
not  policing  the  State  as  we  expected  they  would,  and  we  have  given 
them  a  million  and  a  half  and  more  every  year. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  is  that? 

Mr.  HEWES.  The  butter  men  of  the  country,  who  passed  this  law. 
Who  passed  the  law?  The  butter  men  of  the  country.  Look  at  the 
records  and  see  who  brought  it  here,  and  worked  for  it,  and  who  passed 
it.  We  claim  we  did  it.  Of  course  I  only  speak  for  the  butter  men. 
I,  however,  was  here;  I  spoke  before  both  committees,  and  I  did  all  I 
possibly  could  for  it.  Now,  I  say  the  dairy  interest  is  imposing  no 
hardship;  it  simply  says,  "Now,  go  on  and  try  this  other  scheme;  you 
are  not  crying  for  revenue;  the  Government  is  not  so  poor  it  has  to 
bemoan  the  fact  that  this  tax  upon  oleo  can  be  reduced  or  can  not  be 
reduced.  The  quarter  may  yield  you  more  than  a  million  dollars  before 
you  get  through."  Suppose  it  turns  out  that  oleo  uncolored  is  salable 
the  same  as  uucolored  butter  is?  You  know  well  enough  that  at  the 
best  hotels  in  New  York  you  find  uncolored  butter  there.  Why  should 
it  not  be  with  uncolored  oleo,  and  I  say  it  is  not  a  supposition  to  say 
that  uncolored  oleo  will  sell. 

A  BYSTANDER.  But  it  will  not  sell  as  butter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  more  whitish  is  uncolored  oleo  than 
uncolored  butter? 

Mr.  HEWES.  None.  Uncolored  oleo  is  no  whiter  than  the  white, 
crumby  butter  Mr.  Allen  was  speaking  about  this  morning.  Uncolored 
oleo  has  a  texture  that  commends  itself,  no  doubt,  to  people.  It  has 
that  cloudy  white  color  that  will  not  impose  upon  anybody,  but  there  is 
plenty  of  butter  with  no  deeper  color  than  uncolored  oleo.  The  Gov- 
ernment now  has  prohibited  oleo  from  using  the  emblem,  etc.,  of  butter. 
It  says  you  must  not  do  that.  That  is  the  regulation  of  the  Internal 
Eevenue  Department  to  protect  the  people  and  prohibit  the  use  of  names 
of  creameries,  etc.,  and  all  that,  so  the  people  may  be  protected ;  and 

(69*) 


652  OLEOMARGARINE. 

when  a  person  sees  that  upoii  a  table  naturally  he  will  say,  "If  that  is 
butter,  it  is  all  right."  It  may  be  oleo,  and  then  he  may  not  eat  it. 
Justice  Harlan,  in  the  opinion  on  the  Plumley  case  (155  U.  S.,  p.  461), 
says  that  the  contention  that  the  coloring  of  oleo  yellow,  as  a  fair  con- 
tention, will  fall  to  the  ground;  and  there  is  only  one  reason  why  they 
should  want  to  color  it  yellow,  and  that  is  that  they  may  enhance  its 
value  and  to  deceive  people  into  thinking  they  are  getting  what  they 
do  not  want;  and  he  says  that  the  reason  why  it  should  be  uncolored  is 
so  as  to  compel  the  selling  of  the  stuff  for  what  it  is  and  to  prevent  it 
selling  for  what  it  is  not;  and  the  language  of  Justice  Harlan  on  that 
case  is  worth  reading,  and  it  is  a  fair  exposition  of  the  proposition. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  say  as  to  the  proposed  addition  to  that 
clause  of  a  tax  on  all  colored  butter '? 

Mr.  HEWES.  On  butter  that  is  artificially  colored  I  think  we  would 
hail  that  with  great  pleasure,  but  I  think  it  would  be  very  hard  to  tell 
where  nature  left  off  and  art  began.  The  coloring  matter  is  only  a  trace, 
and  in  all  analyses  that  are  furnished  of  butter  and  oleo.  wherever  there 
is  a  color  used,  it  is  simply  a  trace.  It  is  an  imponderable  quantity  and 
you  can  not  tell  what  it  is,  and  I  would  defy  the  greatest  chemists  in 
the  world  to  tell  you  whether  that  butter  was  colored  or  not  by  an 
analysis. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  If  colored  butter  was  intended  to  deceive  people  and 
palm  it  off  on  the  people  for  something  else  then  it  would  be  a  different 
case? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Yes,  and 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Have  you  any  statistics  as  to  how  many  butter  makers 
there  are  in  the  country? 

Mr.  HEWES.  I  think  those  can  be  furnished. 

A  BYSTANDER.  There  are  10,000  creamery  butter  makers. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  In  what  proportion  does  it  relate  to  the  manufacture 
of  oleo  1 

Mr.  HEWES.  About  50,000  to  1. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Have  you  ever  stopped  to  think  a  little  voting  would 
fix  this? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Where? 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  In  the  right  direction. 

Mr.  HEWES.  We  are  voting  here;  we  hope  to  vote  here. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Have  you  not  discovered  that  a  man  with  a  million 
dollars  has  more  power  than  a  million  men  with  one  dollar  each? 

Mr.  HEWES.  Unfortunately,  yes. 

At  this  point,  the  members  of  the  committee  having  to  go  upon  the 
floor  of  the  House  to  attend  its  session,  the  committee  adjourned. 


MARCH  28, 1900. 

The  subcommittee  on  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Agriculture  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  William  Lorimer 
in  the  chair. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR,  S.  H.  COWAN,  OF  FOET  WORTH,  TEX,,  GENERAL 
ATTORNEY  OF  THE  CATTLE  RAISERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  TEXAS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  just  state  to  the  committee,  in  a  general 
way,  what  you  wish  to  say? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the  object 
of  my  appearance  here  is  to  present  to  your  committee  the  desires  of  a 

(*70) 


OLEOMAKGABINE. 


653 


large  number  of  persons  engaged  in  the  cattle-raising  business  in  Texas, 
Kansas,  Colorado,  Indian  Territory,  Oklahoma,  and  New  Mexico,  and  a 
considerable  number  of  the  members  of  this  association  also  reside  and 
have  their  places  of  business  in  Montana,  Wyoming,  and  the  Dakotas, 
and  elsewhere  in  the  range  country. 

At  an  annual'  meeting  of  the  Cattle  Kaisers'  Association,  composed 
of  about  1,200  members  from  the  different  sections  of  the  country  which 
I  have  named,  which  annual  meeting  was  held  at  Fort  Worth  on  the 
13th  and  14th  of  March,  1900,  the  following  resolution  was  passed, 
and  it  was  adopted  unanimously  without  a  dissenting  voice;  and  it 
was  requested  that  the  secretary  of  the  Cattle  Kaisers'  Association 
have  it  printed  and  have  copies  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  members 
of  Congress  and  presented  to  the  committees.  It  so  happened  that  I 
was  coming  to  Washington  in  connection  with  a  case  known  as  the 
Terminal  Charge  Case  that  we  have,  as  between  the  Cattle  Kaisers' 
Association  and  the  railroads  at  Chicago,  and  I  was  directed  by  the 
committee  to  see  if  I  could  get  a  chance  to  have  a  hearing  before  the 
committees  of  Congress  and  present  these  resolutions,  among  some 
others  that  I  have  from  the  committees,  and  call  the  attention  of  the 
committees  to  the  desires  of  these  people,  who  I  believe  to  be  very 
estimable  people,  who  are  engaged  in  the  business  of  raising  cattle, 
along  the  lines  mentioned  in  this  resolution;  that  is  to  say,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  proposed  law  to  increase  the  tax  on  oleomargarine,  which 
is  a  product  which  is  made  from  the  cattle  which  our  people  grow,  as 
well  as  other  ingredients  that  go  into  it  as  component  parts.  If  I  may 
read  this  resolution,  I  will  do  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  COWAN  (reading  aloud): 

To  the  honorable  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States: 

Your  orator,  the  Texas  Cattle  Raisers'  Association,  respectfully  represents  unto 
your  honorable  body  that  it  is  an  association  composed  of  1,200  cattlemen,  engaged 
in  breeding,  raising,  feeding,  shipping,  buying,  and  selling  cattle,  and  that  its 
members  are  owners  of  cattle  aggregating  over  $100,000,000  in  value. 

Your  orator  desires  to  file  its  emphatic  protest  against  the  enactment  of  the  sev- 
eral bills  now  pending  before  the  different  Congressional  committees  seeking  to 
impose  a  heavy  tax  and  other  restrictive  measures  upon  oleomargarine  and  to  deprive 
it  of  all  rights  and  privileges  as  an  article  of  interstate  commerce. 

I  will  explain  that  the  Cattle  Kaisers'  Association  in  this  meeting 
was  not  definitely  informed  as  to  just  what  the  provisions  of  these  vari- 
ous bills  were,  but  they  were  informed  that  there  were  a  number  of  dif- 
ferent bills,  some  of  them  having  the  object  of  depriving  oleomargarine 
of  the  benefits  of  the  interstate-commerce  law.  I  do  not  know,  but  we 
were  so  informed,  and  hence  this  paragraph  of  the  resolution : 

These  measures  are  a  species  of  class  legislation  of  the  most  dangerous  kind,  calcu- 
lated to  build  up  and  restore  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  another  equally  as  impor- 
tant. They  seek  to  impose  an  unjust,  uncalled  for,  and  unwarranted  burden  upon 
one  of  the  principal  commercial  industries  of  the  country  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
hibiting its  manufacture,  thereby  destroying  competition,  as  manufacturers  can  not 
assume  the  additional  burdens  sought  to  be  imposed  by  these  measures  and  sell 
their  product  in  competition  with  butter. 

The  enactment  of  such  laws  would  completely  destroy  a  business  which  has  been 
recognized  by  law,  which  now  furnishes  a  large  annual  revenue  to  the  Government 
($1,956,618  in  A.  D.  1899),  which  provides  employment  for  thousands  of  men,  and  in 
which  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  invested  fortunes.  It  would  seriously 
affect  the  cattle  industry,  as  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  have  created  a 
demand  for  oleo  oil,  made  from  the  choice  fats  from  the  beef,  at  a  price  at  least  $3 
per  animal  greater  than  it  would  be  worth  if  it  had  to  be  used,  ns  before  the  advent 
of  oleomargarine,  for  tallow,  thereby  entailing  a  loss  on  the  producers  of  millions  of 
dollars  annually.  f*71  ^ 


654  OLEOMARGARINE. 

No  law  can  make  more  stringent  requirements  to  protect  consumers  than  those  now 
in  force,  and  the  fact  that  the  output  is  yearly  increasing  shows  that  there  is  a  demand 
for  oleomargarine  as  such,  in  spite  of  all  hostile  agitation  and  legislation. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  principal  consumers  of  oleomargarine  are  the  intel- 
ligent, prudent,  and  thrifty  people  of  the  middle  class,  who  buy  oleomargarine  berause 
they  prefer  it  to  that  which  is  sold  as  butter  in  their  markets,  and  these  bills  pro- 
pose to  deprive  these  citizens  of  the  privilege  of  purchasing  that  which  they  wish  to 
have,  although  it  is  known  to  be  an  absolutely  clean,  wholesome,  and  nutritious 
article  of  diet. 

The  rights  and  privileges  of  the  producers  of  beef  cattle  should  be  as  well  respected 
as  those  of  others ;  and  as  they  are  the  beneficiaries  in  the  manufacture  of  this  whole- 
some article  of  food  they  should  not  be  burdened  with  unnecessary  special  taxes  or 
needless  restrictions  in  the  manufacture  of  this  product. 

This  product  of  the  "beef  steer"  should  receive  at  the  hands  of  Congress  no 
greater  exactions  than  are  imposed  on  competing  food  products.  It  has  by  experience 
proven  to  be  just  what  a  large  majority  of  the  people  of  this  country  want,  and  we  do 
hereby  record  our  solemn  protest  against  the  enactment  of  legislation  calculated  to 
ruia  a  great  industry  and  to  deprive  not  only  the  working  classes  but  many  others 
of  a  cheap,  wholesome,  nutritious,  and  acceptable  article  of  food. 

THE  CATTLE  RAISERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  TEXAS. 

I  certify  that  the  above  is  a  correct  copy  of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Cattle 
Raisers'  Association  of  Texas,  in  annual  session  at  Fort  Worth,  Tex.,  March  13  and 
14,  1900. 

J.  C.  LOVING,  Secretary. 

Mr.  STEVENS.  I  will  call  your  attention  also  to  a  similar  statement 
from  the  Cattle  Kaisers'  Association  of  Missouri,  whose  meeting  was 
held  at  St.  Joe. 

Mr.  COWAN.  This  resolution  reads  as  follows  : 

A  memorial  to  Congress  adopted  by  the  South  St.  Joseph  Live  Stock  Exchange  in 
opposition  to  the  Tawney  oleomargarine  bill,  which,  if  passed,  will  effect  the  value 
of  the  beef  cattle  of  this  country.  It  is  desired,  therefore,  that  all  feeders  and  deal- 
ers will  use  their  influence  through  their  representative  in  Congress  against  the 
passage  of  this  bill. 

To  the  Honorable  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States: 

Your  petitioner,  the  South  St.  Joseph  Live  Stock  Exchange,  respectfully  repre- 
sents to  your  honorable  body  that  it  is  an  association  composed  of  all  the  commission 
men,  firms,  and  corporations  engaged  in  the  live-stock  business  at  South  St.  Joseph, 
Mo.,  transacting  business  to  the  enormous  amount  of  $50,000,000  annually,  with  a 
membership  roll  of  more  than  100  members  actively  engaged  in  breeding,  raising, 
feeding,  shipping,  buying,  selling,  and  slaughtering  all  kinds  of  live  stock,  and  was 
organized,  among  other  things,  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  best  interests  of  the 
live-stock  industry  as  a  whole,  jealously  guarding  the  interests  of  the  producer  and 
consumer  alike,  and  is  the  recognized  and  official  mouthpiece  of  the  live-stock 
industry  on  all  questions  of  an  interstate  or  international  character,  especially  when 
the  interests  of  the  producer  or  consumer  are  in  any  way  affected. 

Your  petitioner,  in  behalf  of  its  constituency,  desires  to  enter  its  emphatic  pro- 
test against  the  enactment  of  H.  R.  bill  No  6,  introduced  in  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives December  4,  1899,  by  Mr.  Tawney,  providing  for  an  amendment  of  "An  act 
d«fining  butter;  also  imposing  a  tax  upon  and  regulating  the  manufacture,  sale, 
importation,  and  exportation  of  oleomargarine,"  and  in  support  of  its  protest  desires 
to  record  a  few  of  the  many  reasons  in  support  of  its  contention. 

This  measure  is  a  species  of  class  legislation  of  the  most  dangerous  kind,  calcu- 
lated to  build  up  and  restore  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  the  other,  equally  as 
important.  It  seeks  to  impose  an  unjust,  uncalled  for,  and  unwarranted  burden 
upon  one  of  the  most  important  commercial  industries  of  the  country  for  the  pur- 
pose of  prohibiting  its  manufacture,  thereby  destroying  competition,  as  the  manu- 
facturers can  not  assume  the  additional  burdens  sought  to  be  imposed  by  this  measure 
and  sell  their  product  in  competition  with  butter.  The  enactment  of  this  measure 
would  throttle  competition,  render  useless  the  immense  establishments  erected  at 
great  expense  for  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  deprive  thousands  of  employees 
of  the  opportunity  to  gain  a  livelihood,  and  deny  the  people,  and  especially  the 
workingmen  and  their  dependencies,  of  a  wholesome  article  of  diet. 

In  oleomargarine  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  consumers  of  this  country,  espe- 
cially the  working  classes,  have  a  wholesome,  nutritious,  and  satisfactory  article  of 
diet,  which  before  its  advent  they  were  obliged,  owing  to  the  high  price  of  butter 
and  their  limited  means,  to  go  without. 

(*72) 


OLEOMAKGAEINE. 


655 


The  " butter  fat"  of  an  average  beef  animal  for  the  purpose  of  making  oleomar- 
garine is  worth  from  $3  to  $4  per  head  more  than  it  was  before  the  advent  of  oleo- 
margwne,  when  the  same  had  to  be  used  for  tallow,  which  increased  value  of  the 
beef  steer  has  been  added  to  the  market  value  of  the  animal,  and  consequently  to 
the  profit  of  the  producer. 

To  legislate  this  article  of  commerce  out  of  existence,  as  the  passage  of  this  law 
would  surely  do,  would  compel  slaughterers  to  use  this  fat  for  tallow,  depreciate  the 
value  of  the  beef  steer  of  this  country  $3  to  $4  per  head,  which  would  entail  a  loss 
on  the  producers  of  this  country  of  millions  of  dollars. 

The  use  of  this  fat  for  the  purpose  set  forth  is  an  encouragement  to  the  producer 
to  improve  his  herd  and  raise  a  class  of  grade  or  thoroughbred  cattle  capable  of 
making  and  carrying  this  fat,  rather  than  the  common  or  scrub  animal,  which  is  so 
hard  and  unprofitable  to  fatten,  and  the  cattle  raiser  or  producer  has  come  to  know 
the  value  of  this  product,  and  the  amount  of  the  increase  in  the  market  value  of  his 
matured  animal  depends  somewhat  on  the  value  of  the  "butter  fat"  carried  by  the 
animal. 

The  rights  and  privileges  of  the  producers  of  beef  cattle  should  be  as  well  respected 
as  those  of  others,  and  as  they  are  the  beneficiaries  in  the  manufacture  of  this  whole- 
some article  of  food,  they  should  not  be  burdened  with  unnecessary  special  taxes, 
other  than  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  support  of  the  Government  and  the  proper 
governmental  regulations  surrounding  the  handling  of  same. 

The  product  of  the  "  beef  steer"  should  receive  at  the  hands  of  Congress  no  greater 
exactions  than  imposed  upon  competing  food  products.  It  is  already  surrounded  by 
numerous  safeguards,  which  Congress,  in  its  wisdom,  has  seen  fit  to  provide,  stipu- 
lating severe  punishment  for  selling  same  under  misrepresentation  as  to  its  composi- 
tion. It  has  by  experience  proven  to  be  just  what  a  large  majority  of  the  people  of 
this  country  want,  and  in  behalf  of  the  producers  and  consumers  of  this  great  country 
we  do  solemnly  protest  against  the  enactment  of  legislation  calculated  to  ruin  a  great 
industry,  and  to  deprive  not  only  the  working  classes,  but  many  others,  of  a  cheap, 
wholesome,  nutritious,  and  acceptable  article  of  food. 

Very  respectfully  submitted. 

THE  SOUTH  ST.  JOSEPH  LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE, 
By  HORACE  WOOD,  President, 
JOHN  P.  EMMERT,  Secretary. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  there  is  very  little 
I  can  add  to  what  is  contained  in  this  resolution.  I  can  simply  say  that 
I  know,  by  having  been  present  at  these  meetings,  that  the  cattle 
raisers  are  opposed  to  this  oleomargarine  bill.  Of  course,  it  is  to  their 
interest,  you  can  say,  to  be  opposed  to  it,  and  yet  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  should  be  very  slow  to  pass  a  meas- 
ure which  is  so  clearly  class  legislation  when  there  is  no  great  benefit 
to  be  derived  from  it  to  the  people  generally,  if  any  benefit  at  all,  except 
such  taxes  as  might  be  collected;  and  it  ought  not  to  be  taxed  just 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  benefiting  any  other  industry.  I  do  not 
know  how  it  is  elsewhere,  but  it  is  a  fact  that  I  believe  the  committee 
ought  to  consider  that  in  most  parts  of  the  Southwestern  States,  and 
I  personally  know  that  it  is  a  fact,  that  they  do  not  produce  enough 
butter  to  supply  the  people  who  want  to  buy  butter.  It  is  a  fact  in 
Texas,  and  it  is  a  fact  in  most  parts  of  Kansas,  and  to  a  very  large 
extent  in  the  State  of  Colorado,  and  if  you  go  up  there  to  that  country 
as  a  summer  resort  you  will  find  it  to  be  so.  Butter  sells,  as  a  result, 
at  a  high  price.  We  pay  in  Texas  and  Kansas  for  creamery  25  cents  a 
pound  for  some  and  30  cents  for  others  at  certain  seasons  of  the  year. 

What  it  sells  for  at  wholesale  I  do  not  know.  There  is  a  large  class 
of  people  who  might  desire  to  buy  oleomargarine,  and  that  is  a  class  of 
people  that  ought  not  to  be  legislated  against.  They  have  the  same 
rights  as  anybody  else,  and  it  will  affect  the  value  of  our — I  can  not  give 
you  the  figures  exactly  on  that — but  it  will  affect  the  value  of  our  cattle 
from  $2  to  $3  a  head,  as  I  am  informed.  That  can  be  ascertained 
definitely  from  the  different  packing  houses  and  stock  markets  of  this 
country.  It  can  be  ascertained  just  what  it  will  do,  and  there  is  no 
occasion  for  quibbling  upon  thatj  but  I  do  not  pretend  that  I  know. 

(•73) 


656  OLEOMARGARINE. 

But  I  do  know  that  there  is  a  similar  protest  on  this  point,  and  I  do 
not  think  there  should  be  any  legislation  passed  for  -the  purpose  of 
benefiting  the  butter  men  simply.  I  do  not  know  that  this  is  the  pur- 
pose of  the  bill,  but  our  people  think  that  way  down  in  that  part  of  the 
country.  Perhaps  they  are  wrong.  Perhaps  it  may  be  for  the  purpose 
of  regulating  an  article  that  is  pernicious,  but  I  think  investigation  will 
show  that  it  is  not  pernicious.  It  is  an  article  that  is  wholesome,  and 
if  the  people  want  to  buy  it,  let  them  buy  it.  And  if  the  people  like  it- 
better  when  it  is  colored,  I  see  no  reason  why  they  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  color  it  just  as  people  will  color  a  silk  waist  so  that  it  will 
make  your  wife  want  to  buy  that. 

With  these  suggestions,  I  want  to  submit  this  resolution  to  your 
favorable  consideration. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Will  the  other  members  of  the  committee  other  than 
those  who  are  members  of  the  subcommittee  be  permitted  to  ask  ques- 
tions? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  it  is  so  understood  that  they  are  to  have  the 
privilege. 

Mr.  COWAN.  When  you  go  to  ask  me  questions  in  regard  to  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine,  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that.  I  was 
simply  asked  to  present  these  resolutions  and  the  protest  of  our  peo- 
ple against  the  passage  of  this  law,  and  I  do  not  believe  you  will  find 
in  a  large  part  of  the  western  part  of  the  United  States,  or  possibly 
in  the  southern  section  of  the  country,  any  number  of  people  who  desire 
any  such  law  to  be  passed,  and,  in  my  judgment,  it  would  be  certainly 
class  legislation. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  do  not  claim  any  knowledge  of  the  details  of  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  COWAN.  No,  sir;  I  am  a  lawyer;  and  you  know  we  know  very 
little  about  such  things. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Lawyers  are  supposed  to  know  everything. 

Mr.  COWAN.  Well,  that  is  a  very  violent  supposition. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  say  that  if  "a  man  should  want  to  buy  oleomar- 
garine he  ought  to  be  permitted  to  do  so. 

Mr.  COWAN.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Now,  if  a  man  does  not  want  to  buy  it  he  ought  to  be 
protected  so  that  he  will  not  have  to  buy  it? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Oh,  no;  if  a  man  has  his  money  in  his  pocket  he  can 
buy  it  or  not  as  he  chooses,  and  I  do  not  think  the  law  should  protect 
him. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  say  you  think  if  he  had  the  means  he  should  be 
permitted  to  buy.  But,  suppose  that  he  could  not  make  the  necessary 
test  in  order  to  discriminate  and  tell  what  he  was  buying. 

Mr.  COWAN.  I  do  not  know  but  what  he  would  be  in  the  bad  position 
I  am  in  here  in  Washington  about  the  whisky.  I  can't  tell  which  is  the 
good  whisky  and  which  is  the  bad,  and  the  law  can  not  protect  me 
against  my  bad  judgment. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  That  would  depend  a  good  deal  upon  the  time  of  day, 
I  suppose? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Just  so;  and  the  time  of  night  too,  and  doubtless  some 
of  the  rest  of  you  have  had  the  same  experience.  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  anything  against  the  whisky  here;  it  is  pretty  good.  But  I  mean 
to  say  that  lean  not  tell  the  difference  between  the  good  and  the  bad. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Do  you  believe  that  if  people  want  to  buy  oleomarga- 
rine that  its  not  being  colored  would  prevent  their  buying  it? 

Mr.  COWAN.  It  might  in  a  good  many  cases,  and  it  would  with  but- 
ter, too.  *Y4 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  657 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Then  you  say  it  would  enable  them  to  sell  it  for  a 
higher  price  than  they  would  sell  it  for  if  it  were  not  colored. 

Mr.  COWAN.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  the  cause  of  it  or  not.  My 
dairyman  sells  me  colored  butter,  and  it  is  made  from  cows  that  are  fed 
on  cotton  seed,  and  that  butter  when  it  is  made  is  as  white  as  can  be, 
but  I  would  not  buy  it  if  it  was  not  colored.  It  might  be  the  same 
with  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  would  not  buy  butter  that  is  not  colored? 

Mr.  COWAN.  I  might,  but  I  would  rather  buy  it  colored. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Were  you  at  this  meeting  that  passed  this  resolution  ? 

Mr.  COWAN.  I  was.  I  was  at.  the  Live  Stock  Association  meeting 
that  was  composed  of  all  the  live  stock  interests  of  this  country.  I  was 
present  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Live  Stock  Association  at  Fort 
Worth,  on  January  20,  when  a  resolution  like  this  was  passed,  and  it  is 
indorsed  by  all  these  associations  whose  names  are  comprised  in  this 
list,  which  I  now  submit  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  I  did  not  ask  the  question  for  the  purpose  of  discred- 
iting the  fact  that  there  was  such  a  meeting. 

Mr.  COWAN.  I  did  not  so  understand  you,  and  I  mention  this  in 
order  to  show  you  that  this  is  not  trumped  up  evidence  nor  on  the  part 
of  any  manufacturers.  I  do  not  know  any  manufacturers. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  This  speaks  of  increase  of  tax  on  oleomargarine  colored 
in  imitation  of  butter.  Did  they  also  know  that  it  would  decrease  the 
tax  if  it  was  not  colored? 

Mr.  COWAN.  That  was  not  discussed  in  my  presence,  and  I  was  there 
at  both  meetings. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  If,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  oleomargarine  was  not  colored 
in  imitation  of  butter,  and  if  in  its  natural  state,  as  manufactured 
without  coloring,  it  would  sell  for  a  less  price  than  it  does  with  color- 
ing, do  you  believe  the  consumers  would  want  to  buy  it  in  its  colored 
or  uncolored  state? 

Mr.  COWAN.  That  is  a  speculative  matter,  and  I  could  not  determine. 
That  depends. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Speaking  of  whisky,  of  which  you  and  I  perhaps  are 
better  judges,  do  you  think  that  we  might  want  to  buy  more  whisky  if 
it  was  colored  ? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  town  where  I  was  raised  we  had  two 
brands  of  whisky — the  Lincoln  County  whisky  and  another  kind.  The 
Lincoln  County  whisky  was  higher  colored  than  the  other  and  it  was 
also  higher  priced,  and  I  don't  know  that  there  was  any  other  particular 
difference  between  them,  but  we  always  bought  the  Lincoln  County 
whisky. 

Now,  I  want  particularly  to  call  the  attention  of  the  members  of  this 
committee  to  the  list  of  associations  that  belong  to  this  national  asso- 
ciation which  met  at  Fort  Worth,  and  I  want  to  say  that  everyone  of 
these  had  a  good  delegation  there. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Please  just  read  that  list. 

(The  list  referred  to  was  here  read  by  Mr.  Cowan,  and  is  as  follows:) 

Oneida  County  Wool  Growers'  Association,  Idaho;  Colorado  Cattle  Growers' Asso- 
ciation, Colorado;  Kansas  City  Stock  Yards  Company,  Missouri;  Union  Stock  Yards 
Company,  South  Omaha,  Nebr. ;  Denver  Union  Stock  Yards,  Colorado;  Pueblo 
Union  Stock  Yards,  Colorado;  Arizona  Stock  Growers'  Association,  Arizona;  Fort 
Worth  Stock  Yards  Company,  Texas;  South  Omaha  Live  Stock  Exchange,  Nebraska; 
American  Feeders  and  Breeders' Association,  St.  Paul,  Minn. ;  Larimer  County  Stock 
Growers' Association,  Colorado;  Cattle  Kaisers' Association,  Texas ;  Custer  County 
Cattle  Growers'  Association,  Colorodo;  Stock  Feeders'  Association,  Eastern  Koutt 
County,  Colo.;  Sioux  City  Stock  Yards  Company,  Iowa;  Sioux  City  Live  Stock 
Exchange,  Iowa;  Live  Stock  Sanitary  Board,  Arizona;  Saguache  Stock  Growers' 
Association,  Colorado;  Kern  County  Cattle  Growers' Association,  California;  \Vest- 

*S.  Eep.  2043 42  (*75) 


658  OLEOMARGARINE. 

era  South  Dakota  Stock  Growers' Association,  South  Dakota;  Live  Stock  Exchange, 
St.  Joseph,  Mo.;  South  St.  Joseph  Stock  Yards  Company,  Missouri;  Utah  Wool 
Growers' Association,  Utah;  Southern  Colorado  Stock  Growers'  Protective  Associ- 
ation, Colorado;  American  Hereford  Cattle  Breeders'  Association,  Missouri;  Union 
Stock  Yards  and  Transit  Company,  Chicago,  111. ;  Cattle  Sanitary  Board,  New  Mex- 
ico; State  Veterinary  Board,  Colorado;  Live  Stock  Association,  North  Dakota; 
Fort  Collins  Sheep  Feeders'  Association,  Colorado;  American  Short-Horn  Breeders' 
Association,  Illinois;  Roaring  Fork  and  Eagle  River  Stock  Association,  Colorado; 
Uinta  County  Wool  Growers' Association,  Wyoming;  Cattle  and  Horse  Protective 
Association,  District  9,  Colorado;  Elko  County  Cattle  Association,  Nevada;  Ameri- 
can Galloway  Breeders'  Association,  Missouri ;  North  Fork  Valley  Cattle  Growers' 
Association,  Colorado;  Park  County  Cattle  Growers'  Association,  Colorado;  Grand 
and  Eagle  River  Stock  Growers'  Association,  Colorado;  ^an  Luis  Valley  Cattle  and 
Horse  Protective  Association,  Colorado ;  Lincoln  County  Cattle  Growers'  Association, 
Colorado;  Texas  Live  Stock  Association,  Texas ;  Lincoln  and  Elhert  County  Wool 
Growers'  Association,  Colorado;  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange,  Missouri;  Weld 
County  Live  Stock  Association,  Colorado. 

Eastern  Colorado  Stockmen's  Association,  Colorado;  Sheep  and  Wool  Growers' 
Association,  Idaho;  Black  Range  Protective  Association,  New  Mexico;  Western 
Nebraska  Stock  Growers'  Association,  Nebraska;  State  Board  of  Live  Stock  Com- 
missioners, Illinois;  Board  of  Trade,  Tucson,  Ariz.;  Chamber  of  Commerce  and 
Board  of  Trade,  Denver,  Colo.;  Union  Commercial  Club,  Lincoln,  Nebr. ;  Logan 
County  Cattle  and  Horse  Protective  Association,  Colorado;  Snake  River  Stock 
Growers'  Association,  Wyoming;  Gunnison  County  Stock  Growers'  Association, 
Colorado;  Cincinnati  Union  Stock  Yards  Company,  Ohio;  Colorado  Midland  Rail- 
way Company,  Colorado;  Colorado  and  Southern  Railway  Company,  Colorado; 
Oregon  Short  Line  Railway  Company,  Utah;  Yuma  County  Cattle  Growers' Asso- 
ciation, Colorado;  Fremont,  Elkhorn  and  Missouri  Valley  Railroad,  Omaha;  Rio 
Grande  Western  Railway  Company,  Salt  Lake  City;  American  Shropshire  Registry 
Association,  Indiana;  St.  Louis  Live  Stock  Exchange,  Illinois;  Sheep  Sanitary 
Board,  New  Mexico;  Board  of  Sheep  Commissioners,  Wyoming;  Oklahoma  Live 
Stock  Association,  Oklahoma;  American  Shetland  Pony  Club,  Indiana;  Iowa 
Improved  Stock  Breeders'  Association;  Cincinnati  Live  Stock  Commission  Mer- 
chants' Association,  Ohio;  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company,  Illinois; 
North  Park  Stock  Growers'  Association,  Colorado ;  Chicago  Live  Stock  Exchange, 
Illinois;  Pacific  Northwest  Wool  Growers'  Association,  Oregon;  Dominion  Short- 
Horn  Breeders'  Association,  Canada;  Fremont  County  Cattle  Growers'  Association, 
Colorado;  Crystal  River  Railroad  Company,  Colorado;  National  Association  Exhib- 
itors of  Live  Stock  of  America,  New  York ;  Northern  Wyoming  Wool  Growers'  Asso- 
ciation, Wyoming;  Peoos  Valley  Railroad,  New  Mexico;  Cincinnati  Chamber  of 
Commerce,  Ohio;  Red  Polled  Cattle  Club,  America,  Iowa;  State  Board  of  Agricul- 
ture, Kansas;  State  Irrigation  Association,  Utah;  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company, 
Omaha;  State  Agricultural  College,  Wyoming;  Saguache  County  Wool  Growers' 
Association,  Colorado;  Polled  Durham  Cattle  Club  of  America,  Indiana. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Were  you  present  at  this  meeting  that  passed  the  reso- 
lution that  you  first  read? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Yes,  sir;  I  was. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Do  you  know  personally  the  men  who  were  there  repre- 
senting those  different  breeders7  associations  ? 

Mr.  COWAN.  I  know  some  of  them.  I  knew  a  good  many  of  the  men 
who  were  delegates  to  the  convention  at  Fort  Worth.  I  was  also  a 
delegate  to  the  convention  at  Denver  of  last  year. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Do  you  know  personally  whether  those  gentlemen 
are  interested  in  the  breeding  and  raising  of  cattle? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Nearly  all  of  them. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Nearly  all  of  them? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Yes,  sir.  Of  course,  this  national  association  is  com- 
posed of  these  various  other  associations.  It  is  not  composed  of  indi- 
viduals. It  has  no  individual  membership.  The  Texas  Cattle  Baisers7 
Association  is  a  member  of  the  national  association.  In  that  live  stock 
association  the  breeders7  association  have  representation,  and  send  their 
delegates  there  in  proportion  to  the  representation  that  is  made  by  the 
executive  committee  of  that  concern.  I  can  not  remember  now  just  what 
is  the  amount  of  representation  which  each  one  receives. 

(»76) 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  659 

Mr.  ALLEN.  You  have  heard  the  discussions  there  at  the  meeting? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Yes ;  and  they  passed  the  same  sort  of  a  resolution  at 
Denver,  and  I  was  there. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Is  it  claimed  by  the  breeders  of  cattle  that  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine  increases  the  price  of  cattle  by  reason  of  the 
extraordinary  demand  for  fats? 

Mr.  (JowAN.  That  is  what  they  do,  sir.  This  paper  that  is  published 
by  the  Denver  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  which  makes  quite  a  book, 
will  show  you,  and  if  anybody  wants  information  upon  that  subject 
they  will  find  some  splendid  papers  in  that  book.  John  W.  Springer, 
the  president  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Association,  who  lives  at 
Denver,  can  furnish  copies  of  the  annual  proceedings  of  the  National 
Live  Stock  Association  in  which  is  contained  all  the  papers  read  and 
all  the  resolutions  passed.  That  has  been  printed  for  1899,  and  I  think 
is  ready  to  be  printed  for  1900,  if  not  already  out. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Where  do  you  live? 

Mr.  COWAN.  At  Fort  Worth. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Do  you.  know  anything  of  the  retail  sale  of  oleomarga- 
rine in  your  city? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Not  a  thing.  I  see  it  in  the  stores,  but  I  do  not  buy  it, 
and  know  nothing  about  it. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  What  do  you  know,  now,  about  the  process  of  the  retail 
merchants  in  reference  to  the  sale  of  this  product? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Not  a  thing. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Have  you  ever  heard  any  complaints  of  your  citizens  of 
its  being  sold  as  butter,  and  of  their  being  deceived  by  reason  of  mis- 
representation? 

Mr.  COWAN.  I  have  seen  cases  sitting  around,  but  it  looks  a  good 
deal  like  the  kind  of  butter  I  buy,  and  I  buy  Kansas  creamery,  and  I 
do  not  know  the  difference.  I  am  like  I  am  with  the  whisky.  I  may 
not  know  the  difference. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Are  there  any  dairy  interests  in  your  part  of  the  country? 

Mr.  COWAN.  No,  sir;  not  creameries;  no  creameries  in  Texas  that  I 
know  of.  There  are  a  good  many  in  Kansas.  I  go  very  frequently 
over  there  and  I  see  little  sheds  near  the  station  where  they  manufac- 
ture butter,  and  I  see  them  hauling  in  the  milk.  They  manufacture 
butter  there. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  This  was  the  opinion,  the  consensus  of  opinion,  of  the 
cattle  raisers'  associations? 

Mr.  COWAN.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  It  is  claimed  by  the  National  Dairy  Association  that 
this  was  gotten  up  by  certain  individuals,  and  that  these  people  did 
not  know  what  was  in  it.  Was  it  discussed,  and  did  there  seem  to  be 
any  interest  in  it? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Yes,  sir;  the  matter  was  discussed,  and  papers  read 
upon  the  subject,  but  I  can  rot  recollect  just  exactly  the  extent  of  it, 

Mr.  DAHLE.  And  they  understood  what  they  were  voting  upon? 

Mr.  COWAN.  Yes,  sir;  and  a  more  intelligent  convention  has  not 
met  in  this  country,  unless  it  be  a  convention  of  professional  men,  than 
this  National  Live  Stock  Association  which  met  at  Denver  a  year  ago, 
and  at  Fort  Worth  this  winter.  They  know  what  their  interests  are, 
and  it  is  conceded  by  cattlemen;  and  I  had  a  telegram  from  the  former 
president  of  the  Cattle  Eaisers7  Association  asking  me  to  present  these 
resolutions.  He  has  no  interest  in  the  packers  at  all.  I  think  this  is 
the  honest,  and  I  think  intelligent,  judgment  of  these  people,  and  an 
investigation  by  this  committee  of  the  sources  from  which  1  get  my 

(•77) 


660  OLEOMARGARINE. 

information  will  make  that  fact  appear.  Mr.  Tomlinson,  from  Chicago, 
is  bere,  who  represents  the  Live  Stock  Exchange,  and  he  can  speak  of 
that  also. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  This  resolution  speaks  of  placing  a  tax  on  oleomarga- 
rine, and  does  not  seem  to  include  the  fact  that  it  is  merely  upon  the 
colored  oleomargarine.  Did  these  people  understand  that  the  object  of 
this  tax  was  to  reach  the  oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of  butter? 

Mr.  COWAN.  I  do  not  know  that  they  did.  I  never  heard  that  dis- 
cussed or  mentioned. 

STATEMENT  OF  T.  W.  TOMLINSON,  RAILWAY  REPRESENTATIVE 
OF  THE  CHICAGO  LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE,  OF  THE  UNION 
STOCK  YARDS  OF  CHICAGO. 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  There  is  very  little  I  can  say  about  this  that  will 
not  be  practically  a  reiteration  of  what  has  been  said  by  Judge  Cowan. 
I  might,  however,  add  that  the  various  bills  on  this  matter  have  been 
very  carefully  considered  by  the  National  Stock  Exchange  and  the 
Live  Stock  Association,  and  these  organizations  and  the  Chicago  Live 
Stock  Exchange  are  very  fully  aware  of  this.  I  will  say  this,  in  reply 
to  your  question  to  Mr.  Cowan,  as  to  whether  they  know  that  the  tax 
on  oleomargarine  is  to  be  reduced.  They  are  fully  aware  of  the  features 
of  the  bill.  They  are  very  practical  people,  and  not  interested  directly 
in  butter  or  the  cattle  of  the  country.  They  are  of  course  very  much 
interested  indirectly  in  the  people  whom  they  represent,  who  are  pri- 
marily the  raisers  and  growers  of  live  stock;  that  is,  the  cattle  and 
sheep  and  hog  men.  The  Chicago  Live  Stock  Exchange  and  the 
National  Live  Stock  Exchange  are  primarily  composed  of  commission 
men,  who  represent  the  producers  and  raisers  of  these  cattle.  I  came 
to  Washington  for  practically  the  same  reasons  that  Judge  Cowan  did, 
but  was  directed  by  wire  to  represent  the  National  Stock  Exchange, 
and  to  present  to  this  committee  the  resolutions  which  were  passed  by 
that  exchange  in  opposition  to  this  bill.  I  have  not  with  me  the  reso- 
lutions, but  I  will  see  that  they  are  filed  with  this  committee — both  the 
resolutions  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Exchange  and  of  the  Chicago 
Live  Stock  Exchange.  The  constituent  members  of  the  National  Live 
Stock  Exchange  are  composed  of  the  members  of  the  various  exchanges 
in  the  large  cities  of  the  country,  as  Chicago,  St.  Louis,  Cincinnati, 
Louisville,  Indianapolis,  and  so  forth. 

I  believe  that  is  all  that  I  care  to  say,  except  that  the  gentlemen  of 
the  executive  committee  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Exchange  and  the 
Chicago  Live  Stock  Exchange  are  people  who  are  thoroughly  familiar 
with  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  and  are  practical  men,  and 
know  the  effect  which  it  would  have  upon  the  value  of  cattle  if  this 
bill  were  passed,  because  their  business  is  to  sell  cattle. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Are  there  any  of  them  here  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  No,  sir;  I  think  not.  I  do  not  claim  to  be  familiar 
with  it  myself.  I  am  simply  their  mouthpiece  before  you. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  What  relation  do  you  bear  to  that  exchange? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  1  am  the  railroad  representative  of  the  Chicago 
Live  Stock  Exchange. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  A  sort  of  traffic  manager? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  You  have  no  interest  in  the  railroad? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  No,  sir. 

(*78) 


OLEOMARG  AEINE. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  You  represent  this  association  of  commission  mer- 
chants, who  sell  cattle  for  the  stock  raisers,  in  their  relations  to  the 
railroads'? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  Exactly. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  make  arrangements  for  traffic  and  represent 
them  in  that  respect? 

.Mr.  TOMLINSON.  Yes,  sir;  the  commission  men.  Their  opinion,  it 
seems  to  me,  in  regard  to  the  effect  of  legislation  against  oleomargarine 
would  be  probably  better  than  anybody  else's  so  far  as  its  effect  on  the 
price  of  cattle  is  concerned,  because  they  are  the  people  who  sell  the 
live  stock  of  the  country;  and  their  resolution  points  out  that  it  would 
cut  down  the  price  of  cattle  from  $3  to  $4  a  head. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Do  you  know  the  relative  number  of  cattle  raised  in 
this  country  now  and  last  year,  and  the  amount  of  fat  in  each  animal 
on  the  average? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  That  would  depend. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  So  as,  I  mean,  to  be  able  to  determine  the  actual 
value  in  the  animal  of  this  fat? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  I  could  furnish  you  with  some  accurate  figures  on 
it,  but  I  should  dislike  to  make  a  rough  statement.  I  should  think, 
however,  it  would  run  forty  to  fifty  pounds.  I  am  satisfied  that  is  a 
conservative  estimate. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  How  can  you  determine  that  if  you  know  nothing  about 
the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  The  Chicago  Live  Stock  Exchange  slaughters  all 
the  animals  suspected  of  any  disease,  such  as  tuberculosis,  and  a  num- 
ber of  them  are  passed  as  fit  for  food  after  inspection,  and  they  sell  the 
various  portions  of  the  animal  so  slaughtered  at  the  market  value  of 
it,  and  butter  stock  constitutes  one  part  of  that.  I  have  occasion  to 
look  over  their  reports,  and  know  about  what  it  would  average.  That 
is  the  basis  of  my  statement  in  that  respect. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  All  you  know  about  it  is  from  looking  over  those 
reports  ? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  Do  not  misunderstand  me.  I  have  been  present  at 
a  number  of  meetings  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  National  Live 
Stock  Exchange,  and  have  talked  with  the  officials  of  that  exchange, 
and,  of  course,  my  information  is  largely  hearsay  to  that  extent,  but  it 
is  what  they  say  on  the  matter.  They  had  no  occasion  to  misrepresent 
it,  of  course.  It  was  a  matter  they  were  considering. 

In  the  annual  meeting  there  were  two  papers  read  on  the  matter,  one 
by  Colonel  Hobbs,  of  New  York,  and  some  other  gentleman  whose 
name  I  do  not  remember,  but  there  was,  I  think,  but  very  little  discus- 
sion regarding  the  merits  of  this  pending  legislation. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.    You  were  there? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Can  you  explain  why  this  measure,  which,  if  passed, 
would  tax  oleomargarine,  why  the  resolution  did  not  contain  the  fact 
that  the  tax  of  10  per  cent  was  simply  to  be  imposed  upon  the  colored 
oleomargarine? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  No,  sir;  I  can  not.  It  is  readily  understandable 
that  an  association,  while  they  might  have  some  notion  of  such  a  thing 
as  this,  might  not  have  the  exact  details  of  it. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Does  it  mention  the  10  per  cent  at  all? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.    No,  sir. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  The  reference  was  in  a  general  way  to  the  bill  f 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  Yes,  sir.    They  all  thought  that  it  was  very  iinpor- 

(•79) 


662  OLEOMARGARINE. 

tant  as  affecting  the  value  of  their  steers  to  the  extent  of  a  couple  of 
dollars  a  head.  It  was  really  one  of  the  most  important  things  done 
there. 

Mr.  SEVILLE.  Is  it  not  true  that  practically  all  of  the  cattle  shipped 
to  Chicago  from  the  Sixth  Nebraska  District,  which  I  represent,  there 
being  33  counties  there  whose  chief  product  is  cattle,  sheep,  and  horses — 
is  not  it  true  that  those  people  ship  practically  all  of  their  cattle  into 
Chicago? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  So  that,  in  your  opinion,  you  ought  to  be  familiar  with 
the  individual  cattlemen  of  that  country  as  to  their  notions  of  this 
matter? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  Well,  I  know  a  few  of  them.  I  have  attended  a 
good  many  of  those  meetings  at  Rapid  City  there,  and  I  guess  a  good 
many  of  you  come  down  there.  I  notice  that  the  Western  Nebraska 
Stock  Raisers'  Association  was  represented  there. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  If  you  had  received  personal  letters  and  petitions 
from  nearly  every  cattle  owner  in  that  country,  urging  this  tax,  you 
would  not  feel  that  the  people  had  been  represented  there,  would  you, 
when  this  resolution  was  passed? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  From  that  country?  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the 
cattlemen  out  there  are  not  opposing  this? 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  I  mean  to  say  the  cattlemen  are  not  opposing  it. 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  Answering  your  question,  I  must  say  that  on  the 
promises  of  your  statement  I  would  say  that  they  were  not  represented. 
I  think  there  must  be  some  grave  mistake. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Do  you  remember  the  name  of  the  chairman  of  the 
committee? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  Matt  Daugherty. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  W^s  John  Bradt  there,  too? 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  I  could  not  tell  you.  There  were  1,500  delegates 
down  there,  and  while  I  know  a  good  many  of  them  I  would  hardly 
undertake  to  say  who  was  and  who  was  not  there  from  Nebraska. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  I  am  satisfied  that  Daugherty  opposes  this  bill. 

Mr.  COWAN.  Are  not  the  range  cattlemen  out  there  opposed  to  this 
bill? 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  No,  sir;  except  a  few  range  cattlemen  who  have  a 
few  thousand  head  of  cattle  and  are  interested  in  the  Omaha  stock 
yards,  and  I  do  not  know  but  they  are  interested  in  some  of  the  pack- 
ing houses.  They  are  opposed  to  this  bill.  But  my  opinion  is  that  the 
cattlemen  of  that  market  are  the  other  way. 

Mr.  TOMLINSON.  If  there  is  any  other  information  the  committee 
desire  me  to  give  to  them  with  reference  to  oleomargarine,  I  shall  be 
glad  to  do  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  have  anything  in  addition  to  what  you  have 
said  which  you  would  like  to  send  to  us,  address  it  to  the  committee  in 
writing  at  any  time,  and  we  shall  be  glad  to  have  it. 

Mr.  STOKES.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  here  to-day  a  committee  repre- 
senting the  cotton-oil  industries  of  South  Carolina,  North  Carolina,  and 
Georgia,  and  I  ask  that  they  be  heard  in  this  connection.  .The  follow- 
ing gentlemen  are  present  in  this  delegation:  Fred  Oliver,  Charlotte, 
N.  C.;  George  S.  Barber,  Augusta,  Ga.;  C.  Fitzsimmons,  Columbia, 
S.  C.;  Thomas  Taylor,  jr.,  Florence,  S.  C.;  F.  K.  Barden,  Goldsboro, 
N.  C.,  and  A.  C.  Phelps,  Sumter,  S.  C.  These  gentlemen  have  their 
counsel  present,  Mr.  Fred  Oliver,  of  Charlotte,  N.  C.,  who  will  present 
their  case. 

(*80) 


OLEOM  A  KG  AKDOL  ,,  tj  3 

Mr.  STEVENS.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  wish  to  be  heard  just  a  moment  to 
indorse  what  Mr.  Cowan  had  to  say  in  regard  to  the  cattle  interests, 
and  I  wonld  state  that  there  is  no  set  of  men  on  earth  more  alert  to 
their  own  interests  than  the  cattlemen  of  the  United  States,  and  they 
meet  and  discuss  these  questions,  and  the  oleomargarine  question,  in 
the  interest  of  cattlemen,  and  they  certainly  would  not  make  a  mistake, 

I  have  received  numbers  of  letters  from  my  district  from  cattlemen 
opposing  this  bill,  and  1  have  yet  to  hear  from  anyone  of  them  who  is  in 
:  of  it,  and  I  disagree  with  Mr.  Neville  when  he  says  that  the  cattle- 
men of  the  country  are  in  favor  of  its  passage.  I  represent  certainly  the 
largest  cattle  district  in  the  United  States.  I  represent  eighty  counties 
in  the  northern  part  of  Texas.  I  represent  the  owners  of  probably  oue- 
half  of  the  cattle  of  Texas.  You  know  that  Texas  produces  more  live 
stock  than  probably  any  other  two  States  of  the  United  States,  and  I 
think  my  people  are  universally  opposed  to  this  bill.  In  the  first  place,  I 
think  it  is  a  species  of  class  legislation,  and  second,  it  will  probably  add 
10  per  cent  a  pound  to  the  value  of  the  product  of  the  men  who  make 
butter  or  have  their  money  in  that  industry,  and  take  off  that  much  from 
the  cattle  raiser,  and  we  find  that  it  would  be  a  class  discrimination. 


STATEMEUT  OF  MR,  FRED  OLIVER,  REPRESENTING  THE  COTTOH 
SEED-OIL  INTERESTS  OF  NORTH  AND  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

Mr.  OLIVER.  To  facilitate  the  presentation  of  our  views  in  regard  to 
these  bills  we  have  prepared  a  paper  addressed  to  the  honorable  Com- 
mittee on  Agriculture,  which  I  will  ask  permission  to  read.  Mr.  Stokes 
has  said  that  we  represent  the  cotton  seed-oil  interests  of  Isorth  Caro- 
lina., South  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  but  I  would  like  to  state  that  the 
greater  part  of  that  industry  is  in  the  States  of  Xorth  and  South  Caro- 
lina, there  being  but  one  delegate  from  Georgia. 

Mr.  Oliver  here  read  the  paper  referred  to  aloud,  as  follows: 

^  e  appear  before  you  as  a  commit  tee  representing  the  cotton  seed-oil 
interests  of  Xorth  and  South  Carolina  to  protest  against  the  injustice 
and  damage  to  our  business  that  would  be  caused  by  the  passage  of  any 
of  the  proposed  bills  now  before  your  committee*  and  various  other 
committees  of  the  House  and  Senate  relative  to  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine.  We  do  not  expect  to  be  able  to  present  to  your  honor- 
able committee  any  new  facts  or  arguments  why  these  proposed  laws 
should  not  be  enacted,  for  we  realize  that  all  arguments  and  reasons 
pro  and  con  have  been  presented  to  yon  before,  and  all  we  can,  there- 
fore, do  to-day  is,  perhaps,  to  present  them  in  a  new  light,  and  impress 
upon  you  the  injustice  and  damage  to  our  particular  business  that  such 
class  legislative  enactments  would  cause.  We  propound  two  questions 
to  your  honorable  body,  and  will  give  our  answers  in  the  light  we 
aeeit: 

Why  are  there  each  year  one  or  more  bills  introduced  to  regu- 
late the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  f 

Second.  By  whom  are  they  introduced! 

The  answers  to  the  above  questions  are  apparent  to  you  and  every 
one,  for  they  are  always  originated  and  introduced  by  a  special  class  of 
the  country's  population — the  dairy  farmers;  not  as  a  unit,  however,  for 
there  are  many  honorable,  conscientious,  justice-loving  dairy  farmers 
who  do  not  approve  of  such  class  legislation.  The  object  to  be* obtained 
by  having  these  proposed  laws  enacted  is  to  create  a  scarcity  for  the 
lower  grades  of  genuine  cow  butter,  and  thereby  enhance  its  price  to  an 
artificial  figure  for  the  special  benefit  of  a  certain  class  of  dairymen  and 


664  OLEOMARGARINE. 

to  the  damage  and  loss  of  various  other  producing  classes,  and  at  the 
expense  of  a  very  large  class  of  worthy  consuming  citizens  of  moderate 
means.  We  doubt  if  there  ever  has  been  any  producers  of  genuine, 
high-grade,  gilt-edged  butter  who  have  been  spending  their  time  and 
money  trying  to  pass  such  unjust  class  laws.  It  is  only  the  producers 
of  low-grade  butter,  who  find  their  wares  shelved  or  required  to  be  sold 
at  less  price  than  oleomargarine,  who  are  always  agitating  the  subject 
of  taxing  oleomargarine  to  make  its  sale  prohibitory.  We  firmly  believe 
that  there  is  now  produced  by  the  small  country  butter  makers  large 
quantities  of  adulterated  butter  or  oleomargarine,  which,  under  the 
present  law,  enacted  years  ago,  should  pay  a  tax  of  2  cents  per  pound 
and  be  subject  to  all  the  vexatious  sale  regulations  that  are  now  on  the 
statute  books,  but  which  goes  scot  free,  simply  because  the  butter  is 
offered  by  a  so-called  "  guileless  farmer." 

Any  farmer  keeping  half  a  dozen  or  more  cows  for  butter  making  can 
run  his  own  little  oleomargarine  factory  by  mixing  neutral  lard  oil, 
cotton-seed  oil,  oleo  oil,  etc.,  in  bis  churn  with  cream  or  milk,  thereby 
producing  an  inferior  oleomargarine,  which  he  sells  as  "homemade," 
"pure  country  butter,"  without  tax  or  restriction;  and  it  is  this  class 
of  dairymen  and  producers  of  dirty,  unscientifically  made  "pure  but- 
ter" that  are  asking  for  a  tax  and  sale  restrictions  on  the  products  of 
the  large  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  who  are  now  paying  the  unjust 
2  cents  per  pound  tax  and  submitting  to  all  the  vexatious  regulations 
necessary  to  sell  same.  No  manufacturer  of  "Philadelphia  print"  or 
"Elgin  creamery"  grades  of  butter  is  asking  for  a  tax  on  oleomar- 
garine. Why  should  "  genuine  butter,"  so  called,  be  allowed  a  monoply 
to  use  the  butter  coloring  article  of  commerce,  "annotto,"  that  has  been 
for  about  thirty  years,  or  ever  since  oleomargarine  was  invented,  one 
of  the  ingredients  in  its  manufacture?  There  is  no  question  or  doubt 
b«t  what  the  present  artificial  butter  coloring  was  used  in  the  first 
oleomargarine  placed  on  the  market,  and  has  always  been  so  used ;  also, 
that  its  use  in  so-called  "genuine  butter"  has  been  brought  about  by 
the  impossibility  of  "  genuine  butter"  when  uncolored  to  compete  with 
the  oleomargarine  of  commerce,  that  has  always  the  same  color  because 
it  has  always  used  the  artificial  coloring  agency.  If  a  monopoly  of 
artificial  coloring  should  be  enjoyed  by  anyone  it  should  be  the  oleo- 
margarine manufacturers,  not  the  cow  butter  makers. 

If  it  was  possible  to  educate  the  small  producers  of  butter  and  thereby 
make  their  production  of  "genuine  butter"  equal  in  quality  to  the 
product  of  the  best  dairymen  and  creameries,  there  would  be  a  ready 
market  for  it  all  at  about  the  present  price  for  the  very  best  grades  of 
cow  butter,  in  which  case  oleomargarine  would  sell  for  several  cents 
less  per  pound  and  be  used  almost  exclusively  by  those  consumers  with 
limited  means  who  are  willing  to  use  an  article  that  is  sold  at  less 
money  and  which  suits  them  about  as  well  as  a  higher-priced  article; 
but  it  is  not  possible  to  so  educate  the  mass  of  dairymen,  and  as  long 
as  the  large  proportion  of  the  dairymen  abuse  their  production  by 
making  bad  butter,  just  so  long  will  the  oleomargarine  find  favor  with 
the  consumers  with  limited  means,  for  it  is  recognized  by  all  as  being 
far  superior  as  an  article  of  food  to  at  least  half  if  not  two-thirds  of 
the  butter,  genuine  and  artificial,  produced  by  the  farmers  and  others. 
Legislative  enactments  should  be  for  the  benefit  of  all,  not  for  a  favored 
class.  The  enactment  of  any  one  of  the  proposed  10  cents  per  pound 
tax  or  anticoloring  bills  will  prohibit  the  manufacture  of  oleomarga- 
rine openly  and  aboveboard  but  will  not  prevent  its  being  carried  on 
by  an  increased  number  of  farmers  and  moonshine  manufacturers  in 
defiance  of  the  laws  and  without  paying  taxes. 

(*82) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  665 

There  will  be  a  marked  increase  of  "molasses"  and  such  articles 
apparently  consumed  by  the  farmers,  but  which  are  in  reality  lard  oil, 
neutral  oil,  cotton-seed  oil,  or  oleo  oil,  which  the  farmers  will  take  to 
their  homes  to  manufacture  into  "genuine  butter,"  so  called.  There 
will  be  a  decreased  amount  of  country  tallow  and  lard  brought  to  the 
markets,  for  farmers  will  sell  to  each  other  to  use  in  increasing  their 
yield  of  butter  from  their  small  dairy  herd.  There  will,  no  doubt,  be 
propagated  new  breeds  of  so-called  butter  cows  that  will  excel  in  the 
production  of  butter  the  Jerseys  and  other  famous  breeds.  The  limit 
in  the  production  of  butter  from  any  one  dairy  will  be  regulated  only 
by  the  supply  of  neutral  oil,  lard  oil,  etc.,  that  the  farmer  can  smuggle 
to  his  home.  Farmers  will  become  as  skillful  in  evading  these  laws  as 
the  western  North  Carolinian  is  in  evading  the  liquor  laws.  Increase  the 
tax  on  whisky  to  $2  per  gallon,  and  then  see  how  many  more  men  all 
over  the  United  States  will  be  making  "moonshine"  goods.  Reduce 
the  tax  to  25  cents  per  gallon  and  you  will  reduce  the  number  of  cases 
before  each  United  States  criminal  court  in  North  Carolina  to  probably 
one-tenth  the  present  number.  If  the  proposed  laws  to  impose  10  cents 
per  pound  tax  on  oleomargarine  are  enacted  you  will  have  to  increase 
the  revenue  detective  service  many  times  its  present  number  and  hold 
criminal  United  States  courts  every  week  in  every  district.  Butterine 
or  oleomargarine  will  be  produced,  and  the  laws  will  not  prevent  it. 
The  proposed  laws,  if  passed,  will  prevent  open,  aboveboard,  tax- 
paying,  honorable  manufacturers  from  continuing  to  carry  on  their 
present  business,  but  it  will  not  prevent  the  secret  manufacture  of  the 
article  by  a  class  of  men  hard  to  detect  and  still  harder  to  convict. 

We  earnestly  protest  against  the  passage  of  the  proposed  bills  as 
being  unnecessary  and  very  harmful  to  our  business,  to  the  country's 
business  at  large,  and  to  the  morals  of  many  farmers  and  others.  It 
will  be  a  temptation  that  a  great  many  present  law-abiding,  honorable 
farmers  will  not  be  able  to  resist,  and  they  will  become  the  same  as  a 
great  many  western  North  Carolinians,  "moonshiners,"  for  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine. 

The  cotton-seed-oil  interests  of  the  South  have  invested  in  plants  not 
less  than  $50,000,000.  The  working  capital  necessary  to  conduct  the 
business  is  not  less  than  $50,000,000  more,  making  $100,000,000 
employed  in  the  business.  The  mills  have  converted  a  product,  namely, 
cotton  seed,  which  was  once  considered  a  perfect  nuisance  by  the 
farmers  and  ginners,  into  an  article  bringing  to  the  cotton  planter 
millions  of  dollars  and  to  the  laboring  man  millions  more  and  to  the 
railroads  a  large  and  profitable  tonnage  in  and  out,  amounting  to 
millions  of  dollars  in  freight.  There  has  been  paid  to  the  cotton  pro- 
ducers this  season  not  less  than  $40,000,000  for  about  two-fifths  of  the 
seed  produced.  There  has  been  paid  to  the  railroads  to  haul  the  seed 
in  and  the  products  of  oil  mills  out  not  less  than  $15,000,000.  There 
has  been  paid  to  laborers  dependent  upon  the  manufacture  of  cotton 
seed  at  least  $10,000,000,  making  a  grand  total  paid  out  by  the  oil 
mills  of  not  less  than  $65,000,000,  and  this  for  a  product  that  forty 
years  ago  was  considered  absolutely  worthless,  and  for  only  two-fifths 
of  the  seed  produced,  the  balance  being  used  on  the  farms  for  fertil- 
izing and  for  cattle  feed. 

If  the  oil  mills  are  not  crippled  by  adverse  legislation  in  this  coun- 
try and  others  it  is  only  a  matter  of  time  when  all  cotton  seed  not 
required  for  planting  will  be  worked  up  in  oil  mills,  creating  a  market 
value  for  the  seed,  money  paid  out  for  transportation  and  labor,  from  a 
crop  of  12,000,000  bales  of  cotton,  a  grand  total  amounting  to  at  least 

(*83) 


666 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


$150,000,000,  or  about  one-half  of  the  value  of  the  cotton  crop  itself.  Oil 
mills  employ  colored  men  exclusively  in  every  department  excepting 
superintendents  and  skilled  mechanics—  at  least  95  per  cent  of  all  the 
help  employed  being  colored.  These  colored  men  earn  from  75  cents  to 
$2.50  per  day,  and  are  a  very  worthy,  self-sustaining,  law-abiding  class 
of  citizens.  Why  should  the  product  of  their  labor  be  legislated  again  st 
simply  to  give  another  class  of  citizens — the  dairymen — a  monopoly  as 
against  oleomargarine,  a  food  product  that  the  buying  consumer  is  now 
satisfied  to  furnish  to  his  family  and  himself.  The  consumer  knows 
that  this  product,  oleomargarine,  is  healthy  and  clean,  and  it  costs  him 
much  less  money  than  cow  butter  and  is  equally  as  satisfactory,  and 
suits  him  much  better  than  low  grades  of  dirty  butter  costing  the  same 
or  less  money. 

It  is  simply  a  fight  in  which  the  "survival  of  the  fittest"  should  be 
allowed  to  prevail,  and  it  is  not  right  or  just,  no  matter  in  what  light 
it  is  looked  upon,  to  handicap,  by  a  10  cent  per  pound  tax,  or  any 
other  tax  or  regulation,  a  manufactured  article  that  has  been,  is  now, 
and  always  will  gradually  overcome  the  public  prejudice  and  work 
itself  into  public  favor  to  the  detriment  of  much  so-called  butter  that 
is  only  fit  for  the  soap-boilers'  kettle.  Why  not  tax  cotton  clothing  of 
all  kinds,  simply  because  it  is  supplanting  woolen  and  silk  goods  ?  Why 
not  tax  beet  sugar  because  it  will,  in  the  end,  drive  out  cane  sugar  if 
left  to  a  free  fight  on  their  merits  and  cost?  Why  not  prohibit  by  tax, 
or  impose  restrictions  upon  electric  light  and  power,  because  it  is 
driving  out  of  use  gas  arid  horse  power?  Why,  oh,  why,  did  not  the 
farmer  that  furnished  tallow  to  the  candle  makers  look  far  enough  into 
the  future,  years  ago,  and  prevent  the  almost  total  annihilation  of  the 
candle  manufacturing  by  the  products  of  petroleum?  Why  not  pass 
laws  to  prevent  all  inventions  and  improvements  to  the  conditions  of 
the  human  race  just  because  there  are  some  farmers  selfish  enough  and 
self-satisfied  to  live  and  die  as  their  fathers  and  grandfathers  lived 
and  died  years  before  them? 

GEO.  L.  BAKER, 
A.  0.  PHELPS, 
THOS.  TAYLOR,  Jr., 
F.  K.  BORDEN, 

C.  FlTZSIMMONS, 

FRED  OLIVER, 

Committee. 

Eepresenting  mills  in  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia 
as  follows : 


Southern  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  Columbia. 

Produce  Mills. 

Interstate  Cotton  Oil  Co. 

Newberry  Oil  Co. 

Laurens  Oil  and  Fertilizer  Co. 

Union  Oil  and  Mfg.  Co. 

Greenwood  Oil  Co. 

Victor  Cotton  Oil  Co. 

\\oodruff  Cotton  Oil  Co. 

Simpsonville  Oil  Mill. 

Easley  Oil  Mill. 

Honea  Path  Oil  Mill. 

Ninety-Six  Oil  Co. 

Greers  Cotton  Oil  Co. 

Coronaca  Oil  MilL 

Belton  Oil  Mill. 

Liberty  Oil  Mill. 


Williamston  Oil  and  F.  Co. 

Clinton  Oil  Mill. 

Gray  Court  Oil  Mill. 

Seneca  Oil  Mill. 

Southern  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  Savannah. 

Saluda  Oil  Mill. 

Campobello  Oil  Mill. 

Excelsior  Oil  Mill. 

Abbeville  Oil  and  F.  Co. 

Llberton  Oil  Mill. 

Fountain  Inn  Oil  Mill. 

Tiger  Shoals  Oil  Mill. 

Goldville  Oil  Mill. 

Fair  Forrest  Oil  Mill. 

Anderson  Oil  and  F.  Co. 

Lowndesville  Oil  Mill. 

McCormick  Oil  Mill. 


(*84) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


667 


Atlantic  Cotton  Oil  Co. : 

Sumter, 

Bennettsville. 

Southern  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  Columbia. 
Southern  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  Barnwell. 
Darlington  Oil  Co. 
Dillon  Cotton  Seed  Oil  Co. 
Orangeburg  Oil  Mill. 
Florence  Oil  Mill. 
Marion  Oil  Mill. 
Edgefield  Manufacturing  Co. 
Ridge  Spring  Oil  Mill. 
St.  Matthew's  Oil  Mill. 
Chester  Oil  Mills. 
Fairfield  Oil  and  F.  Co. 
Kathwood  Mfg.  Co. 


Moneynick  Oil  Mill. 
Charlotte  Oil  and  F.  Co. 
Concord  Cotton  Oil  Mill. 
Davidson  Cotton  Seed  Oil  Mill. 
Monroe  Oil  and  F.  Co. 
Rowland  Oil  Mill  Co. 
Laurinbnrg  Oil  Co. 
Gibson  Station  Oil  Co. 
Fayetteville  Oil  Co. 
Selma  Oil  and  F.  Co. 
Goldsboro  Oil  Co. 
Wilson  Oil  Co. 
Tar  River  Oil  Co. 
Edgecomb  Oil  Co. 
Newbern  Oil  Co. 
Weldon  Oil  Co. 


This  paper  is  subscribed  by  a  committee  representing  in  North  and 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  about  70  oil  mills,  and  representing  in  the 
South  about  400  oil  mills. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  How  much  of  this  $65,000,000  goes  into  the  butterine? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Of  this  165,000,000? 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  $65,000,000  goes  to  the 
interests  of  the  cotton  raisers  of  the  South  f 

Mr.  OLIVER.  About  $40,00  >,000  was  paid  to  the  farmers  for  seed, 
about  $15,000,000  for  the  transportation  of  the  seed  in  and  products 
out;  about  $10,000,000  for  labor.  In  this  country  there  is  used  proba- 
bly 150,000  barrels  of  50  gallons  each  of  butter  oil  in  manufacturing 
oleomargarine — at  least  aboveboard.  How  much  there  is  used  secretly, 
I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  part  of  it  is  cotton-seed  oil? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  About  150,000  barrels  of  cotton-seed  oil  of  50  gallons 
each  goes  into  the  oleomargarine  through  the  large  manufacturers  that 
are  now  being  taxed  and  living  up  to  the  regulations. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  About  how  much  is  this  worth? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  About  40  cents  a  gallon  of  7j  pounds  to  the  gallon. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Have  you  figured  out  the  number  of  pounds  so  that 
you  know? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  No ;  it  is  only  from  what  is  published  and  the  amount 
of  taxes  paid  on  oleomargarine.  Oleomargarine  contains  from  25  to  40 
percent  of  cotton-seed  oil,  depending  upon  the  weather  and  the  season 
of  the  year  it  is  made. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Are  you  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine 
in  any  way? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Not  at  all,  sir. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Are  you  a  cotton  raiser? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Yes,  sir;  to  a  limited  extent  I  am  a  cotton  raiser.  I  am 
more  of  a  wheat  and  oat  raiser  in  the  farming  line. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Are  you  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  cotton -seed  oil? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Yes,  sir;  in  that  I  am  very  largely  engaged.  Our  plant 
to-day  has  more  than  $1,000,000  right  now  invested  in  cotton-seed  oil 
machinery  and  products. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  O«e  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  barrels,  of  50  gallons 
each,  or  375  pounds  to  the  barrel.  Do  you  mean  that  that  amount  you 
have  given  is  for  the  oil  sold,  or  is  that  including  the  cake  sold  for 
feeding  cattle? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  No,  sir;  only  the  cotton-seed  oil  used  in  butter  making. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  have  figured  the  number  of 
pounds  of  oil  cake  sold  to  feeders? 

(*85) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  OLIVER.  There  is  about  $3,000,000  worth  sold  this  year  and  last, 
and  1,000,000  tons  of  cake  ground  into  meal,  or  sold  as  meal.  Eight 
there,  why  not  tax  cotton  seed  cake  to  prevent  its  being  a  competitor  of 
oil  cake,  and  corn  meal,  and  wheat  bran.  You  have  just  as  much  right 
to  do  it,  and  it  is  exactly  as  just. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Speaking  of  oleomargarine  being  made  of  the  oil  of 
cotton  seed,  I  will  ask  you  if  it  is  not  a  fact  that  cotton-root  tea  and 
cotton  seed  tea  have  not  been  used  for  the  purpose  of  producing 
abortions'? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Cotton  seed  or  root  tea  has  been  used  ever  since  it  has 
been  known  for  that  purpose,  but  cotton-seed  oil  has  no  such  effect. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Have  you  positive  proof  that  it  has  no  such  effect? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  We  have  chemists  all  over  the  world,  who  are  constantly 
experimenting,  and  as  they  have  experimented  with  oleomargarine,  I 
think  they  would  have  discovered  that  fact  if  it  had  been  a  fact.  I  do 
not  believe  you  can  find  a  chemist  who  has  given  an  adverse  opinion 
against  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Don't  you  know  that  it  is  a  fact  that  chemists  have 
given  ample  evidence  on  both  sides  of  this  question? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  presume  that  that  is  true  to  some  extent,  and  the 
evidence  they  have  given  has  generally  been  according  to  the  interests 
of  those  who  employed  them.  There  are  dishonest  chemists.  But 
almost  invariably  the  evidence  has  been  favorable  to  the  cotton  seed 
product. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Now,  you  have  stated  it  as  a  fact  that  there  was  no 
one  advocating  this  legislation  excepting  a  few  farmers,  disreputable 
and  dishonorable  men,  who  wanted  to  palm  off'  a  fraud  with  their  home 
manufactured  oleomargarine;  that  they  were  the  only  ones  urging  this? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  That  was  my  statement,  that  it  was  being  urged  by 
that  class. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  How  do  you  account  for  the  fact  that  the  legislatures 
of  thirty-two  States  have  already  passed  stringent  laws  prohibiting  the 
sale  of  oleomargarine  ? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Simply  because  the  political  power  of  the  parties  in 
those  States  has  been  used  in  that  way,  and  those  in  power  are  dic- 
tated to,  or  their  leg  pulled,  or  wire-pulling  of  some  kind,  which  made 
them  think  it  was  necessary  to  advocate  these  laws. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  That  would  not  apply  to  those  who  are  represented 
by  legislators  who  are  not  of  their  political  faith  f 

Mr.  OLIVER.  It  applies  to  both  parties,  or  all  three  parties,  if  you 
want  to  call  it  three  parties. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Then  it  is  simply  that  condition  of  corruption  which 
you  think  has  spread  all  over  this  country  to  which  your  remarks 
apply? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Yes,  sir;  I  do  think  so,  in  this  line.  But,  when  it  comes 
to  corruption  and  defrauding  of  the  public,  there  is  more  defrauding 
to  day  in  the  clothing  you  are  wearing  and  others  are  wearing  in  this 
room  than  in  any  article  you  can  mention. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Do  you  believe,  because  it  has  gotten  to  this  corrupt 
state  in  all  manufacturing  matters  with  the  people  of  this  country, 
that  it  is  too  late,  and  no  use  to  try  to  do  anything  to  make  it  better? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  believe  the  more  laws  you  have  the  greater  will  be 
the  corruption.  You  will  kill,  absolutely,  the  manufacture  of  oleomar- 
garine on  an  honest,  honorable  basis;  and  you  will  put  it  into  the 
hands  of  the  secret  manufacturers,  farmers,  and  others,  who  are  like 
money  shavers,  and  the  Government  will  not  receive  any  tax  to 
amount  to  anything. 

(*86) 


OLEOMAKGAEINE.  669 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  So  you  think  that  the  plan  was  in  the  beginning  that 
the  big  fish  should  eat  the  little  fish,  and  the  big  airtmals  should  chew 
up  the  little  ones,  and  therefore  it  ought  to  be  allowed  to  go  on  as  it 
was  intended? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  No,  sir;  I  think  it  is  simply  the  case  of  one  class  in  this 
country  trying  to  benefit  itself  at  the  expense  of  another  class.  The 
South  has  no  interest  in  the  dairies,  and  they  have  a  very  large  interest 
in  the  cotton  seed  oil. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Is  not  it  a  fact  that  all  the  Southern  States  have  this 
law? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  do  not  know  of  a  single  Southern  State  that  has  a  law 
against  oleomargarine.  And,  while  we  use  in  this  country  150,000  bar- 
rels of  oil,  they  use  on  the  Continent  the  much  larger  amount  of  500,000 
barrels  in  butter  making.  The  passage  of  this  law  will  be  an  incentive 
for  every  country  to  pass  something  of  the  same  kind  in  order  to  put 
their  farmers  on  the  same  level  with  ours. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I  would  like  to  know  whether  you  have  any  reports  as 
to  the  healthy  qualities  of  oleomargarine1? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  have  not  here. 

Mr.  WILSON.  They  are  to  be  had,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  have  read  plenty  of  such  reports  from  the  United 
States  Government  chemists  passed  on  it. 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  reports  on  that  would  be  of  more  information  to 
us  than  all  the  testimony  on  earth. 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  think  the. last  Congress  appointed  a  committee  which 
has  already  reported  favorably  on  oleomargarine  as  a  food  product ;  it 
was  Senator  Mason's  committee. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Yes;  Senator  Mason's  committee. 

Mr.  WILSON.  If  this  bill  is  passed  will  it  not  have  the  effect  of  an 
absolutely  prohibitory  tax? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  It  will,  so  far  as  aboveboard  manufacturing  goes. 

Mr.  WILSON.  That  is  what  I  mean. 

Mr.  OLIVER.  It  will  induce  all  sorts  of  people  to  go  into  the  secret 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  WILSON.  What  is  the  cost  of  manufacturing  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  It  has  about  50  per  cent  of  butter,  cream,  or  milk, 
churned  with  the  cotton  seed  oil,  neutral  oil,  oleo  oil,  etc. 

Mr.  WILSON.  What  will  it  cost? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  It  will  depend  on  what  milk  and  cream  is  worth  at  any 
particular  season  of  the  year,  and  on  the  prices  of  the  oils  used.  To-day 
they  are  worth  almost  double  what  they  were. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I  want  to  know  what  the  cost  is,  and  as  to  whether 
this  tax  will  drive  it  out  of  the  market? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  As  I  say,  you  can  not  take  any  one  date  for  the  cost 
of  oleomargarine.  Eight  now,  the  cost  of  oleo,  stearin,  neutral  oil,  and 
cotton-seed  oil  are  almost  double  what  they  were  a  year  ago. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  What  does  it  amount  to  now  approximately,  per 
pound? 

Air.  OLIVER.  I  suppose  oleomargarine,  the  best  grades,  is  selling  at 
15  cents,  probably  costing  the  manufacturers  10  cents,  making  2  cents 
tax  and  3  cents  profit. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Then  a  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  will  put  it  above 
the  price  of  butter? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Above  the  best  grades  of  butter  on  the  average. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  So  that  butter  that  would  go  below  that  would 
simply  undersell  it  and  drive  it  out  of  the  market? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Yes,  sir;  butter  will  simply  drive  it  out  of  the  market. 

(*87) 


670  OLEOMARGARINE. 

You  will  draw  from  oleomargarine  $100,000,000  in  this  case,  and  I  think 
that  ;you  will  find  that  the  value  of  butter,  genuine  butter  of  the  low 
grades  made  by  the  farmer,  will  be  enhanced  very  much. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  manufacture  more  than  one  grade  of  oil? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Yes,  sir;  you  can  manufacture  a  dozen  grades. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  grade  do  you  sell  to  the  manufacturers  of 
oleo  ? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  They  buy  the  highest  grade  made  in  the  South. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  That  is  called  butter  oil,  and  takes  its  special  name 
from  its  use. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What,  if  anything,  have  the  chemists  said  about 
the  healthfulness  of  butter  oil? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  All  chemists,  without  exception,  agree  that  cotton-seed 
oil  is  as  healthful  as  olive  oil,  and  that  it  is  one  of  the  healthiest  kinds 
of  oil  that  can  be  used  in  food. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  relation  does  it  bear  to  olive  oil? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  It  is  almost  identical  in  every  respect. 

Mr.  WILSON.  It  goes  to  England  as  cotton  seed  oil  and  comes  back 
here  as  olive  oil. 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  suppose  there  is  some  of  that  done. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Why  would  the  prohibition  of  the  color  in  oleomar- 
garine stop  the  sale  of  it? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Just  because  your  palate  is  the  same  as  your  idea,  and 
you  would  not  buy  natural  white  butter  if  you  could  buy  natural 
yellow  butter;  and  I  claim  that  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine  is  being 
copied  by  the  butter  makers  and  not  the  coloring  of  butter  by  the  oleo- 
margarine makers.  Oleomargarine  has  always  been  colored  and  but- 
ter has  not.  It  is  only  since  the  finely  colored  oleomargarine  has  been 
on  the  market  that  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  color  butter. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Do  you  know  where  oleomargarine  was  first  manu- 
factured ? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  A  French  chemist  discovered  it  in  1870. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Didn't  it  grow  out  of  the  necessities  of  the  people 
during  the  Franco-Prussian  war? 

A  MEMBER.  16  was  during  the  siege  of  Paris. 

A  MEMBER.  Do  you  think  the  Government  would  have  trouble  in 
collecting  the  tax,  if  this  bill  was  passed? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Ten  times  more  than  in  South  Carolina  and  in  Ken- 
tucky collecting  the  internal  revenue  tax  on  whisky. 

A  MEMBER.  Would  they  have  any  considerable  difficulty  in  collect- 
ing the  internal  revenue  tax? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  They  have  no  trouble  now  with  the  large  manufacturers 
of  oleomargarine. 

A  MEMBER.  But  they  would  have. 

Mr.  OLIVER.  They  would  have  with  everybody,  because  anybody 
could  buy  what  is  necessary  to  make  oleomargarine  and  take  it  home 
with  them.  But  there  would  not  be  a  pound  of  oleomargarine  made 
where  there  is  10  pounds  made  now  if  it  had  to  be  placed  on  the  mar- 
ket as  oleomargarine  and  uncolored. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Is  there  any  competition  of  paraffin  with  cotton-seed 
oil  for  use  in  making  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  None  whatever.  Paraffin  is  worth  14  cents  a  pound 
and  cotton- seed  oil  5  cents. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Paraffin  is  worth  almost  what  it  is  worth  to  manufac- 
ture oleo. 

(*88) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  671 

Mr.  OLIVER.  It  is  worth  more  to-day.  It  was,  until  two  or  three 
years  ago,  a  drug  on  the  market,  and  it  was  then  discovered  that  paraffin 
was  the  best  insulator  that  could  be  had  for  electric  light  wires  and 
tubes,  filling  the  tubes  with  paraffin,  and  its  present  value  is  two  or 
three  times  what  it  was  several  years  ago. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  You  stated  a  while  ago  that  this  legislation  grew  out 
of  politics,  and  that  the  politicians  had  been  bulldozed  and  hoodwinked. 
I  will  state  for  your  information  that  you  are  mistaken.  I  happened  to 
be  a  member  of  the  legislature  of  Iowa  when  such  legislation  was 
passed,  and  I  will  state  that  it  received  the  support  of  Populists  and 
Eepublicans  and  Democrats  by  nearly  a  unanimous  vote,  and  I  do  not 
believe  they  were  all  representatives  of  the  moonshiners.  As  I  under- 
stand you,  if  this  matter  is  left  to  Armour  and  the  other  large  manu- 
facturers, there  is  no  danger  of  their  violating  the  law,  but  if  it  should 
pass  into  the  hands  of  the  farmers  they  would  violate  the  law. 

Mr.  OLIVER.  They  are  violating  the  law  to  day. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  You  say  they  are  violating  the  law  now? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  know  personally  from  seventeen  years  ago,  when  I 
knew  a  man  at  Paterson,  N.  J.,  who  was  mixing  oleo  oil  in  his  churn  on 
his  farm,  and  churning  it  in  to  butter,  and  selling  it  as  natural  butter  ID 
the  country  back  of  there. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  There  is  at  present  of  course  a  tax  on  it. 

Mr.  OLIVER.  There  is  a  tax  of  a  dollar  and  ten  cents  a  gallon  on 
whisky,  but,  are  you  collecting  it? 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  OLIVER.  You  are  not  collecting  one  tenth  part  of  it. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  I  want  to  know  what  the  objection  of  the  opposition  is 
to  this  bill.  As  I  understand  it  now,  you  say  it  is  safer  to  leave  this 
matter  in  the  hands  of  the  Armours  and  other  large  manufacturers  than 
to  leave  it  in  the  hands  of  the  farmers  because  the  farmers  are  all  dis- 
honest. That  is  the  principal  objection  ? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  No,  sir ;  it  would  throw  it  in  the  hands  of  the  farmer. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  That  is  your  principal  objection  ? 

Mj.  OLIVER.  No,  sir;  it  would  curtail  the  use  of  cotton-seed  oil,  and 
finally,  in  the  end,  curtail  the  use  of  it  in  the  countries  of  the  Continent. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Is  not  it  a  fact  that  this  law  aims  to  do  away  with  the 
infringement  with  a  tax,  and  that  it  may  be  sold  uncolored  without 
tax? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Yes,  sir;  provided  you  do  not  color  it.  But  why  should 
not  genuine  butter  pay  a  tax  when  it  is  colored?  It  is  not  genuine 
butter  when  it  is  colored.  Oleomargarine  has  been  colored  from  the 
first,  and  butter  has  been  colored,  since  the  introduction  of  oleomar- 
garine, universally.  I  say,  why  should  the  butter  have  a  monopoly 
of  it? 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  That  question  was  asked  and  fully  answered  before  the 
committee  the  other  day. 

A  MEMBER.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  oleomargarine  that 
is  made  consists  of  from  25  to  40  per  cent  of  cotton- seed  oil,  depend- 
ing upon  the  temperature  and  the  weather  at  the  time  it  is  made  and 
sold? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  And  50  per  cent  of  it  is  milk  and  cream? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Yes,  sir;  about  50  per  cent. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  That  leaves  only  10  per  cent 

Mr.  OLIVER.  No,  sir;  you  can  make  it  without  any  cotton-seed  oil. 
It  is  made  with  neutral  lard  oil,  exclusively,  but  I  believe  the  most  of 

(*89) 


672  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  manufacturers  make  a  combination.  They  have  to  use  stearin,  or 
some  such  substance,  in  order  to  hold  it  properly. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Do  you  think  a  large  percentage  of  butterine  is  made  in 
this  way? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Do  you  think  about  all  the  butterine  is  made  in  the  way 
you  say? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Do  you  believe  that  40  per  cent  of  oil  and  50  per  cent  of 
milk  and  cream 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Its  basis  is  about  50  per  cent  of  oil  of  some  kind,  not 
all  cotton-seed  oil,  and  not  all  oleo  oil,  and  not  all  neutral  oil,  or  peanut 
oil,  if  they  are  making  it,  which  is  used  largely  in  the  business,  and 
about  50  per  cent  is  from  butter  and  milk. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Do  you  know  this  to  be  a  fact? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  And  there  are  more  farmers,  the  small  farmers  that  are 
making  butter  now — they  are  the  ones  that  are  asking  for  this  law, 
rather  than  the  larger  farmers  patronizing  the  creameries? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  It  is  my  honest  belief  that  a  large  part  of  the  interest 
taken  in  this  bill  is  for  the  sake  of  throwing  it  into  the  hands  of  the  larger 
farmers  to-day. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  It  is  not  the  creamery  men? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  No,  sir;  it  is  the  small  dairymen. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Do  you  know  that? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  say  that  I  know  personally  that  seventeen  years  ago  a 
man  was  doing  that  out  there  near  Paterson,  N.  J.,  and  from  what  I  have 
learned  and  heard,  I  should  say  that  can  be  done  and  is  being  done 
to  day. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Suppose  that  we  members  get  letters  asking  for  this  leg- 
islation. Do  you  believe  that  these  letters,  judging  from  your  experi- 
ence, come  from  this  kind  of  people  ? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Some  do. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  A  large  pe'  centage? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  believe  that  a  large  percentage  of  humanity  are  hon- 
est. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Do  you  believe  a  large  percentage 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  do  not  know  whom  you  have  letters  from,  for  or 
against. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  No,  I  do  not  think  you  do,  according  to  your  statement. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  I  understand  that  you  do  not  undertake  to  speak  for  the 
farmers  of  the  United  States  generally,  but  so  far  as  your  knowledge 
extends  in  your  locality.  Is  that  it — the  dairy  fanners  ? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  think  the  dairy  farmers  of  North 
Carolina  and  South  Carolina  are  doing  an  illegal  oleomargarine  busi- 
ness any  more  than  anyone  else.  It  is  only  here  and  there  now  that  it 
is  being  done;  but  I  think  it  would  be  done  almost  universally,  or  at 
least  one  fourth  or  one-half  of  the  farmers  would  make  oleomargarine 
and  sell  it  for  butter  if  this  tax  was  placed  upon  it. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  How  would  that  affect  the  cotton  seed  oil? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  affect  it,  except  that  it 
would  be  sold  to  men  that  would  carry  it  back  into  the  country  secretly. 
The  chances  are  that  they  would  try  to  get  all  the  oil  they  could  use 
from  their  home  market. 

Mr.  STOKES.  I  think  Mr.  Oliver,  as  I  understood  his  presentation,  so 
far  as  related  to  the  reasons  why  certain  legislatures  have  passed  such 

(•90) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  673 

legislation,  said  that  that  was  his  opinion,  that  that  was  the  tendency, 
and  he  stated  that  it  applied  to  all  parties;  and  then  on  the  other 
question,  as  to  why  that  should  not  be  passed,  was  it  not  your  state- 
ment, Mr.  Oliver,  that  you  undertook  to  say  that  that  would  be  the 
tendency  of  this  legislation,  and  not  that  it  was  already  going  on,  except 
to  a  very  limited  degree? 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  But  he  stated  this  was  his  opinion,  and  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  cotton-seed  industries  of  North  and  South  Carolina. 
There  will  be  other  parties,  as  I  understand,  from  other  States  that 
will  ask  for  hearings  before  this  committee. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  I  would  like  to  ask  what  States  he  thinks  this  counter- 
feiting of  butter  is  carried  on  in? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Every  one. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  In  every  State  of  the  Union? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Yes,  sir;  wherever  there  is  a  smart  Aleck  of  a  farmer 
that  can  make  butterine.  Any  mau  can  make  it. 


SATURDAY,  March  31, 1900. 

The  subcommittee  of  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Agriculture  met  at  10,30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  William  Lorimer 
in  the  chair. 

STATEMENT  OF  W.  S.  HANNAH,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  KANSAS  CITY 
LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Hannah,  will  yon  state  in  your  own  way  your 
views  on  this  bill  that  is  under  consideration,  commonly  known  as  the 
oleomargarine  bill  ? 

Mr.  HANNAH.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  am 
here  in  an  official  capacity  representing  the  Kansas  City  Live  Stock 
Exchange.  Believing  that  the  legislation  proposed  by  the  bill  under 
consideration  by  your  committee  means  a  loss  and  damage  to  the  live- 
stock interests  of  the  whole  country  and  that  we  Western  people  are 
particularly  affected,  and  while  we  disclaim  any  technical  knowledge 
of  the  oleomargarine  industry,  we  feel  that  our  knowledge  of  it  makes 
it  appear  to  us  that  it  means  a  loss  and  damage  to  the  live  stock  trade, 
and  that,  as  a  consequence,  we  feel  like  protesting  against  the  passage 
of  this  bill. 

Now,  the  growth  of  the  packing  industry  from  the  earliest  days,  from 
its  inception  to  the  present  day,  while  I  am  not  able  to  trace  it  in  all 
its  details,  yet  it  is  a  well-known  fact,  and  can  be  substantiated  by  my 
colleagues  on  our  committee  and  doubtless,  by  members  of  your  com- 
mittee, that  there  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  the  packing  industry 
when  a  good  deal  of  the  product  went  to  waste,  when  the  hoofs  and 
horns,  and  blood,  and  other  parts  of  the  animals  slaughtered  went  to 
absolute  waste,  and  as  the  packing  business  grew  and  developed,  and 
they  learned  how  to  utilize  the  product,  the  time  came  when  the  dis- 
covery of  the  butterine  or  oleomargarine  gave  another  use  for  beef  fat, 
certain  beef  fat,  and  as  a  consequence  there  was  a  utilization  of  that 
product  and,  as  well,  another  use  of  the  leaf  lard  of  the  hog,  and  in 
that  way  the  matter  has  grown  and  developed,  and  has  presented  a 
good  food  for  the  human  family,  and  we  have  found  a  natural  demand 
for  it,  and  we  believe  it  to  be  a  pure,  wholesome  food.  We  believe 
there  is  need  for  it,  that  the  public  demands  it,  and  wants  it,  because 

*S.  Rep.  2(M3 43  (*91) 


Q  7  4  OLEOM  ARG  ABINE. 

it  is  a  food  product  within  the  reach  of  all,  and  particularly  of  advantage 
to  that  class  of  our  people  who  must  economize  in  their  expenses,  and 
must  of  necessity  take  pains  about  their  expenditures,  and  in  spite  of 
the  growth  and  development  of  the  oleomargarine  industry  the  butter 
interests  have  also  grown,  and  we  feel  that  there  is  room  enough  for 
both  products  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  that  there  is  room  enough 
for  both  products  in  this  country,  and  we  consequently  believe  that  any 
legislation  that  attempts  to  put  down  one  industry  at  the  expense  of 
the  other  is  not  just  legislation. 

I  am  not  here  to  present  any  particular  argument  in  my  capacity  for 
the  industry,  as  my  committee  has  arranged  for  the  presentation  of  a 
specially  prepared  paper  by  Mr.  McCoy,  and  it  is  through  him  that  we 
desire  to  present  our  main  argument,  but  Mr.  Walden,  a  member  of  our 
committee,  would  like  to  be  heard  in  a  few  words,  and  I  shall  be  glad 
to  give  way  to  him  and  subsequently  to  Mr.  McCoy. 

STATEMENT  OF  G.  M.  WALDEN,  DIRECTOR  OF  THE  KANSAS  CITY 
LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE, 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  state  to  the  committee  in  your  own  way,  Mr. 
Walden,  your  views  on  this  bill. 

Mr.  WALDEN.  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen :  The  president  of  our 
exchange  has  outlined,  in  a  general  way,  something  of  the  nature  and 
purpose  of  our  visit.  He  has  told  you  that  Mr.  McCoy  will  follow  with 
the  argument. 

As  live  stock  men  we  are  busy.  You  understand  the  magnitude  of 
that  trade  in  the  United  States,  and  you  understand,  gentlemen,  that 
we  are  here  in  the  interest  of  that  body  alone.  I  care  nothing  what- 
ever about  all  the  side  issues  that  may  be  brought  into  the  question;  I 
look  upon  it  solely  in  its  relation  to  us  as  cattle  and  hog  men. 

Much  has  been  said  and  written  of  this  industry  of  the  manufacture 
of  oleomargarine.  Much  that  has  been  said  and  written,  no  doubt,  has 
been  born  of  prejudice  in  one  direction  or  another — local  interests,  etc. 
Much  has  been  said  about  its  hurtfulness,  its  harm  fulness  as  a  food.  I 
weigh  230  pounds  and  have  not  been  sick  a  day  in  years.  I  eat  it  three 
times  a  day  and  it  has  never  had  any  bad  effect  on  me. 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  cleanliness  of  food  products  generally. 
You  gentlemen  are  all  busy  men.  I  take  it  that  you  are  very  much 
interested  in  this  problem  before  you.  Would  it  not  be  wise  for  you, 
as  business  men,  to  understand  the  subject  from  personal  observation. 
What  I  mean  by  personal  observation  is  to  go  to  the  centers  of  this 
great  industry  and  investigate  its  methods,  its  manufacture,  etc. 

My  purpose  simply  is  to  invite  this  committee  as  a  whole,  or  any  sub- 
committees that  you  may  appoint,  to  go  to  these  great  centers  of  this 
manufacturing  interest— Chicago,  St.  Louis,  Kansas  City,  and  other 
points  in  your  country — and  go  through  the  institutions  and  learn 
about  the  manufacture  of  this  product.  It  is  simple.  There  is  noth- 
ing that  you  can  not  understand  about  it  from  the  time  the  bullock  is 
taken  out  of  the  yard,  sold,  taken  to  the  scales,  inspected  there  by 
your  Government  inspectors,  passed,  if  you  please,  and  sent  to  the 
slaughterhouses.  There  is  nothing  that  you  can  not  see  from  the  time 
he  is  knocked  down  until  this  great  feature  of  the  butterine  or  oleo- 
margarine is  taken  from  him,  and  sent  right  through  the  different  pro- 
cesses until  it  comes  out  butterine.  And  if  you  will  come  into  that 
locality  we  gentlemen  from  Kansas  City  will  furnish  you  an  escort  from 
our  exchange,  take  you  through  the  packing  houses,  and  assist  you  in 

(*92) 


OLEOMAKGAKLNE.  G75 

every  way  in  our  power.  We  will  not  wine  and  dine  you;  we  will  not 
go  out  and  get  drunk  with  you,  or  anything  of  the  kind.  I  take  it  for 
granted  that  none  of  you  gentlemen  do  such  things:  we  do  not  in  the 
West.  We  simply  want  you  to  come  as  business  men  and  understand 
what  the  manufacture  of  this  great  food  product  means  to  the  millions 
who  are  compelled  to  buy  it,  and  who  can  not  buy  the  higher  priced 
butter. 
I  thank  you,  gentlemen. 

STATEMENT  OF  JOHN  C.  McCOY. 

Mr.  McOoT.  Gentlemen,  I  am  a  member  of  the  Kansas  City  Live 
Stock  Exchange,  a  commission  merchant,  a  farmer,  a  stock  raiser,  and 
a  feeder. 

I  am  one  of  those  persons  who  believe  the  Lord  made  everything  for 
some  purpose,  and  all  men  for  special  lines.  While  I  have  been  trying 
for  a  good  many  years  to  find  out  just  exactly  what  I  was  made  for,  I 
learned  a  good  many  years  ago  that  it  was  not  to  make  a  speech.  And 
if  this  committee  will  pardon  me  in  what  I  have  to  say,  I  would  like 
the  privilege  of  reading. 

There  is  a  bill  pending  before  the  House  of  Representatives,  viz, 
House  bill  No.  3717,  known  as  the  Grout  bill,  which  has  been  referred 
to  your  honorable  body,  and  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  that 
measure  we  have  asked  for  a  hearing.  This  bill  is  aimed  at  the  life  of  a 
great  commercial  industry,  that  of  oleomargarine.  We  believe  it  will, 
if  enacted  into  a  law,  seriously  cripple  one  with  which  by  comparison 
both  oleomargarine  and  that  of  its  opponent,  butter,  pale  into  insig- 
nificance. I  refer  to  the  live-stock  industry.  My  associates  and  myself, 
representing  as  we  do  the  second  largest  live-stock  market  in  the  world, 
a  market  at  which  was  received,  during  the  year  1899, 5,963,573  head  of 
live  stock  that  had  a  valuation  of  $120,946,439;  a  market  which  loans 
annually  from  $20,000,000  to  $30,000,000  to  the  farmers,  feeders,  stock 
growers,  and  ranchmen  to  assist  them  in  carrying  on  their  industries: 
a  market  that  had  for  its  patrons  during  1899  the  stock  raisers  of 
thirty-two  States  and  Territories,  feel  that  our  interests  in  these  measures 
are  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  our  apology  for  thus  trespassing  upon 
the  time  of  the  committee. 

In  discussing  this  bill  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  go  into  the  relative 
merits  of  oleomargarine  and  butter  as  an  article  of  food,  as  I  am  will- 
ing to  leave  that  to  such  eminent  students  of  economic  questions  as 
Professor  Schweitzer, professor  of  chemistry, Missouri  State  University; 
Prof.  G.  0.  Oaldwell,  of  Cornell  University ;  Prof.  W.  O.  Atwater,  Direc.- 
or  of  the  United  States  Agricultural  Experiment  Stations;  Prof.  H.  W. 
Wiley,  chief  chemist  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 
and  scores  of  others  who  have  expressed  themselves  on  the  subject. 
Nor  will  I  discuss  the  purity  or  healthfulness  of  the  two  commodities, 
as  the  subcommittee  appointed  by  the  United  States  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures,  of  which  the  Hon.  W.  E.  Mason  was  chairman, 
found  "  that  the  product  known  as  oleomargarine  is  healthful  and  nutri- 
tious and  no  further  legislation  is  necessary."  But,  even  if  that  were 
not  the  case,  the  most  scientific  chemists  of  the  National  Laboratory 
are  available  to  this  committee  for  that  purpose.  Nor  will  I  touch 
upon  the  question  of  coloring  matter,  whether  each  commodity  has  a 
different  material  or  both  the  same,  whether  it  be  harmless  or  unhealth- 
ful,  for  that  question  could  be  settled  within  twenty-four  hours  to  the 
entire  satisfaction  of  this  committee  by  the  Government  chemist  just 

(*93) 


676 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


referred  to.  While  to  my  mind  the  enactment  into  laws  of  such  meas- 
ures as  those  under  discussion — laws  which  put  a  prohibitive  tax  upon 
one  commercial  industry  for  the  benefit  and  upbuilding  of  another,  that 
permits  the  introduction  of  one  healthful  and  harmless  ingredient  into 
an  article  of  food  in  order  to  make  it  more  palatable  and  prohibits  the 
introduction  of  the  same  ingredient  into  an  equally  healthful  and  harm- 
less article  of  food — smacks  of  class  legislation  of  the  most  objection- 
able character,  I  admit  my  deficiency  in  legal  knowledge  and  training 
and  leave  that  to  the  eminent  legal  minds  both  on  this  committee  and 
in  the  country  at  large.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  doubt  in  the 
minds  of  this  committee  that  the  proposed  measure  is  intended  to  place 
a  prohibitive  tax  upon  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  thus  legisla- 
ting the  industry  out  of  existence.  Let  us  see  what  effect  it  would 
have  upon  the  cattle  industries  of  the  country. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  principal  ingredients  of  oleomargarine 
are  the  caul  fat  of  the  beef  steer,  the  leaf  lard  of  the  hog,  pure  cream, 
milk  and  butter,  cotton  seed  oil,  salt,  and  coloring  matter.  In  each 
beef  steer  there  is  an  average  of  50  pounds  of  caul  fat  from  which  the 
oleo  oil  is  extracted,  and  in  each  hog  there  is  an  average  of  8  pounds 
of  leaf  lard  which  forms  the  neutral  oil.  The  market  price  to  day  for 
caul  fat  for  oleomargarine  purposes  is  10  cents  per  pound,  while  tallow 
is  worth  6  cents;  leaf  fat  is  worth,  for  oleomargarine  purposes,  8J  cents 
per  pound,  and  for  lard  6  cents.  There  were  slaughtered  at  Kansas 
City  from  January  1,  1899,  to  January  1,  1900,  991,783  head  of  cattle, 
producing  49,589,150  pounds  of  oleo  oil,  worth  to-day  10  cents  per 
pound,  a  total  value  of  $4,958,915.  Were  it  not  for  the  demand  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  has  created  for  oleo  oil  this  product 
would  have  been  sold  for  tallow,  which  is  worth  6  cents  per  pound, 
netting  for  the  above  production  $2,975,349,  a  difference  of  $1,983,566, 
or  $2  less  to  the  cattle  raiser  for  each  steer  slaughtered.  There  were 
slaughtered  at  Kansas  City  during  the  period  mentioned  above 
2,700.109  hogs,  producing  21,600,872  pounds  of  neutral  lard  worth 
to  day  8J  cents  per  pound,  a  total  value  of  $1,836,074. 

The  demand  for  neutral  lard  as  an  oleomargarine  ingredient  removed, 
this  product  would  have  been  sold  for  lard  at  6  cents  per  pound,  a 
total  value  of  $1,296,052,  a  difference  of  $540,022,  or  20  cents  less  to  the 
farmer  for  each  hog  slaughtered.  Thus  it  can  be  readily  seen  from  the 
above  figures  that  had  the  oleomargarine  factories  been  closed  January 
1, 1899,  it  would  have  cost  the  cattle  and  hog  raisers  marketing  their 
stock  at  Kansas  City  for  the  year  1899  the  sum  of  $2,523,588.  And  this 
amount  does  not  by  any  means  represent  what  the  total  loss  would  have 
been,  for  if  all  the  oleo  oil  and  leaf  fat  used  in  this  country  for  oleo- 
margarine purposes  were  to  be  used  as  common  tallow  and  lard,  and 
for  soap  making  purposes,  it  would  make  an  over  supply  of  those  com- 
modities, thereby  reducing  the  market  price  from  1  to  2  cents  per  pound, 
but  that  is  a  matter  upon  which  no  reliable  data  can  be  given.  Have 
we  not  a  right,  therefore,  to  step  in  and  file  our  protest  against  so  unjust 
a  measure?  But  some  one  may  say,  that  presents  a  condition  entirely 
local.  Then  let  us  step  up  to  higher  ground  and  take  a  broader  view. 

The  Government  report  shows  that  on  January  1, 1900,  there  were  in 
the  United  States  43,902,414  head  of  cattle,  of  which  16,292,360  head 
were  milch  cows;  and  of  cattle  other  than  milch  cows,  27,610,054.  By 
the  enactment  of  laws  prohibiting  the  use  of  oleomargarine  each  head 
of  those  cattle  other  than  milch  cows  would  have  a  depreciation  in 
value,  as  shown  above,  of  $2  per  head,  or  a  total  of  $55,220,108.  Again, 
the  Government  report  showed  that  on  January  1,  1899 — no  estimate 

(•94) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


677 


being  made  by  the  Government  for  the  year  1899,  it  having  decided  to 
await  the  census  enumeration  in  June,  but  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  the 
numbers  were  approximately  the  same  January  1, 1899,  and  January  1, 
1900— there  were  in  the  United  States  38,651,631  hogs.  If  the  leaf 
lard  of  the  hogs  of  the  United  States  had  to  be  used  for  lard  by  the 
death  of  oleomargarine,  it  would  mean  a  depreciation  in  value  of  20 
cents  per  head,  a  total  of  $7,730,326.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  if  these 
measures  become  laws,  at  that  instant  $62,950,434  will  be  taken  directly 
from  the  farmers  and  stock  raisers  of  the  country.  To  that  could  be 
added  the  vast  sums  invested  in  manufacturing-plants  and  the  loss  in 
wages  to  an  army  of  laborers;  but  that  is  a  field  outside  of  my  domain. 
And  now,  gentlemen,  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  another  phase 
of  this  question,  and  to  illustrate  it  you  will  find  below  the  number  of 
cattle  in  the  United  States  as  given  by  the  Government  report,  those 
States  divided  into  three  classes,  viz,  dairy  States,  cattle- growing 
States,  and  States  that  are  agricultural,  but  having  fewer  inilch  cows 
than  other  cattle,  which  I  will  term  Southern  States: 

Connecticut 210,717 

New  York 2,059,715 

New  Jersey 263, 157 

Pennsylvania 1, 494, 126 

Delaware 58,035 

Maryland 257,435 

Ohio 1,455,558 

Michigan 801,818 

Indiana 1,234,930 

Illinois 2,324,254 

Wisconsin 1,598,529 

Minnesota 1,237,003 


CATTLE-GROWING  STATES. 

Arkansas  

419,  422 

Texas  

5,  046,  335 

Kentucky  

539,  449 

Iowa  

3,  442,  012 

Missouri  

2,047,346 

Kansas  

2,  867,  224 

Nebraska  

2,  206,  792 

South  Dakota  

879,200 

North  Dakota  

431,  371 

Montana  

959,  808 

Wyoming  
Colorado  

747,826 
1,  115,  421 

New  Mexico  

679,  359 

Arizona  

381,  861 

Utah  

336,  076 

Nevada  

238,  081 

Idaho  

397,  928 

Washington  

390,  444 

Oregon  

637,  433 

California  

913,  753 

Oklahoma  

323,  971 

Total  

25,  001,  112 

DAIRY   STATES. 

Maine  

316,  537 

New  Hampshire  

214,  678 

Vermont  

401,  336 

Massachusetts  

254,  967 

Rhode  Island  

35,  405 

Total 14,218,200 


SOUTHERN  STATES  (MORE  CATTLE-GROW- 
ING THAN  DAIRY). 

Virginia 567,488 

North  Carolina 518, 141 

South  Carolina 260. 223 

Georgia 666,147 

Florida 412,820 

Alabama 511,080 

Mississippi 517,809 

Louisiana 294,961 

Tennessee 526,235 

West  Virginia 408,198 

Total 4,683,102 


Grand  total 43, 902, 414 

By  the  above  it  is  shown  that  seventeen  States,  all  of  them  in  the 
extreme  East,  except  six  which  are  in  the  middle  West,  have  14,218,200, 
while  thirty-one  States  in  the  West  and  South  have  29,684,214;  the  six 
great  cattle-growing  States  of  the  West,  Missouri,  Kansas,  Iowa, 
Nebraska,  Texas,  and  Colorado,  alone  having  16,724,930,  or  2,506,730 
head  more  than  the  whole  seventeen  dairy  States  combined.  Where 
then,  gentlemen,  will  the  burden  of  such  legislation  fall?  Nor  is  that 
all.  Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  stock  raisers,  farmers,  and  feeders  of 
the  State  of  Illinois,  with  their  1,303,018  cattle,  other  than  milch  cows, 
will  willingly  consent  to  have  their  property  depreciated  $2,606,036  for 
the  benefit  of  their  creamery  neighbors?  Is  it  right  to  tax  the  stock 

(*95) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 

glowers  of  the  great  State  of  Iowa — the  second  largest  cattle  growing 
State  in  the  Union— with  their  3,442,000  head  of  cattle,  $4,357,458  to 
build  up  the  creamery  industry  of  their  State?  Or  the  Kansas  stock- 
men contribute  $4,319,098  to  the  creamery  industry  when  the  total  out- 
put of  butter  for  the  entire  state  was  only  $5,890,272  ?  Shall  the  owners 
of  the  1,387,615  head  of  beef  and  stock  cattle  in  the  State  of  Missouri 
consent-  to  a  depreciation  of  $2,775,230  in  their  property  when  the  State 
contains  only  659,731  milch  cows  and  not  one-third  of  those  used  for 
commercial  purposes,  their  uses  being  entirely  domestic?  The  same  is 
true  of  many  of  the  other  States.  New  York  has  one- third  as  many 
other  cattle  as  milch  cows,  and  Pennsylvania  one-half  as  many. 

By  this  bill  you  are  asked  to  do  three  things:  Take  from  the  fruits 
of  labor  by  depreciating  the  property  of  a  large  class  of  the  American 
people  over  $62,000,000  that  another  and  a  far  less  numerous  class 
might  profit  thereby ;  to  cripple  the  industries  and  retard  the  growth 
of  thirty-one  States  and  Territories  of  this  great  Union  that  a  favored 
few  in  the  remaining  seventeen  States  might  be  correspondingly  bene- 
fited, thus  helping  to  establish  a  commercial  sectionalism,  to  close  and 
destroy  one  vast  branch  of  our  commercial  industries  in  which  are 
employed  over  $5,000,000  and  thousands  of  laborers,  that  a  lesser  indus- 
try, which  is  unable  to  compete  on  fair  and  equal  grounds,  might  assume 
to  itself  the  monopoly  in  its  line  of  trade.  The  enactment  of  such  laws 
is  a  long  step  toward  paternalism,  antagonistic  to  the  freedom  of  our 
American  institutions  and  contrary  to  the  principles  of  our  republican 
form  of  government.  An  able  writer  in  a  paper  on  the  subject  of  "Food 
and  legislation"  before  The  National  Pure  Food  and  Drug  Congress, 
held  in  Washington  March  7  to  10  of  this  year,  said: 

The  aim  of  all  food  legislation  should  be  for  the  general  weal  and  the  public 
health.  The  tendency  of  State  legislatures  is  to  control  by  local  interests,  arid  the 
result  of  this  domination  is  a  breed  of  selfish  local  statutes  which  tend  to  block 
national  distribution.  The  primary  object  of  such  provincialism  is  gain  and  not  the 
public  welfare.  Interstate  free  trade  and  free  distribution  has  been  the  boast  of 
pnr  federal  system  of  sovereign  States.  In  spite  of  this  boast  State  legislatures, 
influenced  by  local  interests  for  the  mere  purpose  of  additional  profit,  are  erecting 
State-line  barriers  and  manacling  the  internal  commerce  of  our  free  system.  No 
wise  economist  can  ask  a  State  legislature  to  destroy  competition,  and  Congress 
should  not  do  so.  If  a  thing  is  an  injury,  kill  it  entirely.  If  butterine  is  pure  in  its 
constituent  parts  and  is  healthful  food,  it  has  a  free  and  perfect  right  to  an  unham- 
pered market. 

It  is  therefore  to  Congress  that  the  live  stock-growers  of  the  country 
look  for  protection  of  their  rights  and  their  interests,  and  they  ask  and 
expect  absolute  fairness  and  impartiality.  The  cattle  and  hog  growers 
of  the  West  could  with  as  much  consistency  ask  Congress  to  put  a 
prohibitive  tax  on  mackerel  from  the  coasts  of  Maine,  the  oysters  along 
the  Maryland  shores,  or  the  fish  from  the  northern  lakes,  thereby 
increasing  the  consumption  of  beef  and  pork,  as  well  as  the  creamery 
interests  to  ask  the  passage  of  this  bill. 

But,  gentlemen,  do  the  creamery  and  dairy  interests  need  your  fos- 
tering care  in  the  shape  of  special  legislation,  or  is  it  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  a  monopoly  on  one  of  the  chief  necessities  of  life?  Legislate 
out  of  existence  their  only  competitor,  oleomargarine,  and  might  not 
the  supply  of  butter  in  this  country  be  regulated  by  the  Elgin  Dairy 
Exchange  as  the  price  of  butter  is  now  fixed  for  the  United  States  by 
that  institution  every  Monday  morning? 

Representative  ALLEN.  You  say  that  the  price  of  butter  "is  fixed 
by  that  institution  every  Monday  morning"! 

Mr.  McCoY.  That  is  common  report.  I  suppose  it  is  within  the 
power  of  this  committee  to  find  out  absolutely  whether  that  statement 

(*96) 


OLEOMARGAEINE.  679 

Is  correct  or  not.  It  is  the  general  report  all  through  our  country,  and 
is  generally  understood  on  the  commercial  exchange,  and  by  people 
generally,  that  the  Elgin  Dairy  Exchange  meets  Monday  morning  and 
fixes  the  price  at  which  butter  shall  be  sold  throughout  the  country. 

Representative  ALLEN.  For  that  ensuing  week  "2 

Mr.  McCoy.  Yes,  sir.    That  is  not  from  my  personal  knowledge. 

Representative  ALLEN.  It  is  currently  understood? 

Mr.  McOoY.  It  is  currently  understood — common  report.  I  asked 
as  to  whether  the  creamery  interests  as  dairy  interests  needed  special 
legislation  to  foster  their  industry. 

On  January  1, 1890,  the  number  of  milch  cows  in  the  United  States, 
by  Government  report,  was  15,952,883,  and  on  January  1, 1900,  the  num- 
ber by  the  same  authority  was  16,292,300.  The  butter  exported  from 
the  United  States  during  1894,  as  given  by  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, was  11,812,092  pounds,  valued  at  $2,077,608,  and  in  1898—1 
regret  I  have  not  later  statistics — was  25,690,025  pounds,  valued  at 
$3,864,765.  Does  that,  gentlemen,  seem  to  bo  a  waning  industry  ?  Now 
let  us  look  at  the  other  side.  On  January  1, 1890,  by  the  same  authority 
quoted  above,  there  were  in  the  United  States  cattle  other  than  milch 
cows  36,849,024,  and  on  January  1,  1900,  only  27,610,054.  In  other 
words,  while  the  cattle  growers  were  struggling  through  hard  times  and 
prices  were  at  such  a  low  ebb  as  to  discourage  the  growing  of  herds  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  show  a  decrease  of  9,238,970,  the  dairy  interests 
were  enabled  not  only  to  remain  in  business,  but  to  increase  their  herds 
339,447.  The  Orange  Judd  Farmer,  published  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
an  agricultural  journal  of  exceptionally  high  standing,  and  one  that  has 
enjoyed  the  confidence  of  the  agricultural  community  for  a  decade,  in 
a  recent  issue  says : 

Cows  are  worth  50  per  cent  more  now  than  during  the  ten  years  preceding  1897, 
and  are  fully  as  high  as  during  the  boom  of  1884-85.  Last  summer  cheese  got  back 
to  old-time  prices.  Butter  has  of  late  sold  much  above  the  low  quotations  of  four 
or  five  years  ago.  Even  milk  sold  in  market  is  stiffening  in  prices  and  may  go  up  to 
the  values  of  the  early  80's,  and  will  go  there  with  organized  persistency  by  pro- 
ducers and  reasonable  cooperation  from  the  trade. 

If  I  understand  the  bill  under  discussion  it  provides  for  a  tax  of  one- 
quarter  cent  per  pound  for  uncolored  oleomargarine  and  ten  cents  per 
pound  for  colored,  thereby  inferring  that  uncolored  oleomargarine  is  a 
harmless  article  of  food  and  on  the  same  plane  with  uncolored  butter, 
but  should  pay  into  the  internal-revenue  department  of  the  Government 
a  tax  of  one-quarter  cent  per  pound  in  order  that  the  public  officials 
might  see,  for  the  benefit  of  the  general  health,  that  it  was  kept  in  the 
best  of  sanitary  condition,  but  that  colored  oleomargarine  is  an  unhealth- 
ful  and  dangerous  substance  that  should  be  suppressed  by  means  of  a 
prohibitive  tax.  The  only  question,  therefore,  in  this  bill  is,  Do  the  oleo 
manufacturers  use  as  harmless  an  ingredient  for  coloring  purposes  as  do 
the  creameries;  and  if  so,  shall  Congress  say  to  one  industry  you  shall 
not  and  permit  it  to  be  used  by  the  other  ?  As  this  and  similar  bills  have 
been  introduced  by  the  creamery  interests,  as  is  clearly  shown  by  their 
advocacy  of  the  same,  we  can  say  to  them  that  it  would  be  of  far  greater 
benefit  to  the  public  health  were  they  to  follow  the  teachings  of  the  Great 
Master  when  he  said:  "Cast  out  first  the  beam  out  of  thine  own 
eye,  and  then  shalt  thou  see  clearly  to  pull  out  the  mote  that  is  in  thy 
brother's  eye."  It  is  a  well  established  fact  that  diseases  may  be  trans- 
mitted of  a  most  malignant  type  from  animals  to  the  human  system 
through  the  medium  of  food  and  drink,  and  the  American  people  have 
cause  to  congratulate  themselves  upon  the  great  work  that  is  being  done 

(•97) 


680  OLEOMAKGAEINE. 

and  has  been  done  during  the  past  ten  years  by  the  Department  of 
Agriculture,  through  its  most  excellently  sonducted  Bureau  of  Animal 
Industry,  to  reduce  that  danger  to  a  minimum.  While  the  Bureau  of 
Animal  Industry,  assisted  by  State  sanitary  boards,  are  endeavoring  to 
stamp  out  and  protect  the  public  health  from  several  diseases  of  minor 
importance,  there  is  only  one  disease  among  the  cattle  of  the  United 
States  to-day  that  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  menace  the  public 
health,  and  that  is  the  great  archenemy  of  the  human  race,  tuberculosis. 
And,  again,  we  desire  to  commend  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  for 
the  scientific  knowledge  and  successful  experiments  that  enabled  it  to 
bring  forth  tuberculin,  with  which  they  are  so  nobly  fighting  that  fell 
destroyer.  The  Department  of  Agriculture,  appreciating  the  necessity 
for  vigorous  measures  for  its  suppression,  said  in  its  "  Year  Book," 
published  January  1, 1899 : 

The  health  of  animals  and  of  men  is  very  largely  dependent  upon  the  use  of  sani- 
tary precautions  and  the  enforcement  of  sanitary  regulations.  As  tuberculosis  in 
animals  is  reduced,  so  will  the  disease  in  man  be  proportionately  decreased.  There 
is  every  evidence  to  prove  conclusively  that  man  may  be  infected  with  tuberculosis 
by  drinking  the  milk  from  tuberculous  animals. 

I  call  upon  this  committee  to  ascertain  from  the  Department  of 
Agriculture  if  it  is  not  a  fact  that  tuberculosis  exists  to  a  very  large 
extent  among  the  dairy  herds  of  this  country,  and  is  of  very  rare 
occurrence  among  the  beef  herds,  and  practically  unknown  among  the 
vast  herds  of  the  great  West.  The  State  board  of  live  stock  com- 
missioners for  the  State  of  Illinois  in  its  thirteenth  annual  report, 
issued  October  31,  1891),  said: 

The  experience  gained  through  tuberculin  tests  made  in  dairy  herds  by  the  board 
since  the  efficiency  and  accuracy  of  tuberculin  as  a  diagnostic  agent  has  become 
established  points  very  clearly  to  the  fact  that  throughout  the  dairy  districts  of  the 
State  tuberculosis  prevails  among  the  dairy  cattle  to  a  considerable  extent.  While 
in  many  herds  only  a  few  cases  have  been  disclosed,  in  a  large  number  of  herds  a 
considerable  percentage  has  been  found  affected. 

And  in  another  place  this  board  in  the  same  report  says: 

The  persistency  of  tuberculosis  in  remaining  in  a  herd  when  once  introduced,  the 
certain  ultimate  destruction  through  the  disease  of  each  affected  animal,  and  its 
certainty  to  spread  to  other  animals  through  contagion,  *  *  *  and  the  danger 
that  exists  of  the  disease  being  communicated  to  human  beings  through  the  milk  or 
the  meat  of  affected  animals,  makes  the  question  of  effectually  dealing  with  this 
disease,  an  effort  to  eradicate  it  from  among  the  breeding  and  dairy  herds  of  the 
State,  one  of  the  first  importance  to  every  taxpayer  and  citizen. 

This  same  board  reports  that  in  two  years — 1897  and  1898 — out  of 
929  dairy  cattle  tested,  over  12  per  cent  were  found,  upon  post-mortem 
examination,  to  be  diseased. 

About  six  years  ago  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  through  the 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  instituted  the  system  of  governmental 
inspection  of  live  stock,  and  at  alt  the  principal  live  stock  and  packing 
centers  have  maintained  an  efficient  and  intelligent  corps  of  inspectors. 
They  have  gradually  improved  the  service,  as  experience  demonstrated 
the  requirements,  until  to-day  it  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  branches 
of  the  Department.  Graduates  of  veterinary  colleges  are  placed  at  the 
head  of  the  various  stations,  and  the  inspectors,  with  a  few  exceptions, 
are  under  the  civil  service,  and  must  pass  examination  for  proficiency. 
Each  animal,  before  being  permitted  to  enter  the  premises  of  a  slaugh- 
tering establishment,  must  pass  an  antemortem  examination,  and  if 
found  to  have  tuberculosis,  actinomycosis  (or  lumpy  jaw),  hog  cholera, 
far  advanced  in  pregnancy,  or  if  it  is  diseased  in  any  manner  so  as  to 
render  it  unfit  for  food,  it  is  condemned. 

(*98) 


OLEOMAEGAKINE.  631 

At  each  killing  establish ment  inspectors  are  stationed  who  make 
post  mortem  examination  of  each  head  of  cattle  killed,  placing  a  Gov- 
ernment certificate  of  inspection  on  each  carcass,  and  in  case  of  hog 
products  for  export  microscopical  examinations  are  made. 

There  are  no  diseases  of  a  malignant  type  among  the  beef  herds  of 
the  United  States,  and  all  claims  of  impurity  by  foreign  countries  are 
like  the  features  of  this  bill,  mere  subterfuges  made  for  the  purpose  of 
advancing  selfish  interests,  and  even  if  there  were  the  thorough  inspec- 
tion given  by  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  assisted  by  State  sanitary 
boards,  and  such  associations  as  I  have  the  honor  to  represent,  the 
health  of  the  public  would  be  amply  protected.  The  past  three  years 
the  cattle  industry  of  the  country  has  taken  rapid  strides  on  the  road 
to  recovery  from  the  extreme  depression  which  reached  its  lowest  point 
in  1890.  A  reversal  at  this  time  would  be  of  serious  consequence  to  the 
country  at  large,  especially  all  that  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi 
River.  The  only  two  dark  clouds  that  appear  on  the  horizon  to  threaten 
the  industry  are  bills  before  our  own  Congress,  which,  if  passed,  would 
surely  cause  an  enormous  decrease  in  values,  and  the  bill  now  pending 
before  the  Reichstag  of  Germany  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  American 
meat  products  into  that  empire. 

They  are  equally  unjust  and  unwarranted.  If  the  seal  of  official  con- 
demnation is  thus  placed  by  Congress  upon  two  of  the  important 
products  from  our  cattle  and  hogs,  with  what  grace  or  under  what  pre- 
text can  the  people  of  this  country  demand  retaliation  on  the  part  of 
our  Government,  should  the  German  bill  become  a  law? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  any  member  of  the  committee  want  to  question 
Mr.  McCoy? 

Representative  BAILEY.  Mr.  McCoy,  I  notice  that  you  make  the  claim 
of  a  certain  loss  to  animal  industry  on  account  of  the  passage  of  this 
bill,  which,  if  true,  would  of  course  be  a  very  potent  reason  why  it  should 
not  become  a  law.  The  National  Dairy  Association  has  published  a 
pamphlet  in  which  they  take  issue  with  that  proposition,  and  have 
compiled  some  figures  to  prove  that  the  number  of  cattle  slaughtered 
in  this  country  and  the  number  of  hogs  slaughtered  in  this  country,  as 
compared  with  the  amount  of  oleomargarine  which  is  made,  would  only 
reduce  the  price  about  20  cents  a  head.  Can  you  tell  us  how  this  would 
be — why  there  is  such  a  difference  in  figures  between  the  Dairy  Associ- 
ation and  the  Cattle  Association? 

Mr.  MoCoY.  In  this  day  of  close  competition  and  great  manufactur- 
ing interests,  every  commodity,  as  I  understand  it,  is  bought  with  a 
view  to  what  can  be  brought  out  of  the  raw  material.  If,  in  these  late 
days,  when  the  killing  establishments  can  use  every  part  of  an  animal, 
and,  through  improved  machinery  and  processes  of  manufacture,  can 
use  parts  that  were  unavailable  before,  you  reduce  the  articles  that  can 
be  manufactured  from  the  raw  material  in  the  shape  of  the  beef  steer, 
you  naturally  depreciate  him  in  value.  I  have  seen  a  statement  some- 
where, probably  the  one  to  which  you  refer,  in  which  they  claim  that 
there  would  be  a  depreciation  of  only  20  cents  per  head,  and  claim  that 
of  the  outpnt  of  oleo  product,  leaf  fat,  amounting  to  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  80,000,000  to  83,000,000  of  pounds  for  the  year,  only  a  very 
small  percentage  went  into  oleomargarine,  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
foreign  demand  for  this  product,  the  immense  amount  of  this  product 
that  is  sold  outside  of  the  United  States,  has  not  been  taken  into 
account  in  that  estimate.  Even  if  that  were  the  case,  I  have  offered  an 
explanation  on  that  point  right  at  the  very  last  of  this  paper — that  if 
we  ourselves  claim  that  our  product  is  unhealthy,  with  what  grace  can 
we  ask  another  country  to  come  in  and  accept  it  and  use  it? 


OLEOMARGARINE. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  In  other  words,  then,  I  understand  that 
your  argument  is  that  this  amount  of  oleo  oil  is  actually  inanutactured 
from  the  animals  that  are  slaughtered,  part  of  it  being  used  in  this 
country  and  part  of  it  being  sent  abroad,  and  that  this  legislation  will 
put  the  seal  of  condemnation  upon  its  use  by  our  country,  the  country 
that  produces  the  great  bulk  of  it  for  the  world,  and  will  only  be  the 
beginning  of  the  destruction  of  the  oleomargarine  business  of  the  world? 
You  say  that  the  agrarian  people  of  other  countries,  if  we  put  our  seal 
of  condemnation  on  it,  saying  that  it  is  impure,  will  decline  to  accept 
it,  and  the  result  will  be  the  absolute  abolishment  of  the  use  of  oleo 
oil  in  the  production  of  butterine  as  it  enters  into  human  food?  That 
would  be  the  natural  consequence,  would  it? 

Mr.  McOoY.  It  would  be  the  natural  consequence,  I  should  think.  I 
do  not  know  what  amount  of  oleo  oil  is  produced  in  Germany,  for 
instance;  but  if  the  agrarian  party  in  Germany  are  able  to  raise  suffi- 
cient cattle  to  supply  their  own  country  with  oleo  oil,  they  certainly 
would  not  use  ours  if  we  claim,  that  it  is  unhealthy  and  no  good. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  Mr.  McCoy,  I  understood  yon,  in  the  early 
part  of  your  argument,  to  present  some  figures  based  upon  the  opera- 
tions of  the  slaughterhouses  in  Kansas  City.  Did  I  understand  you, 
a  little  further  on,  to  extend  those  operations  or  those  figures  to  other 
exchanges? 

Mr.  McCoy.  No,  sir. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  I  think  your  estimate  was  about  $2  a  head 
of  cattle? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  Are  we  to  understand  that  those  same 
estimates  would  probably  apply  to  the  other  sections  or  slaughtering 
houses? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Unquestionably;  yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  That  is  a  fair  estimate,  you  think,  that 
would  apply  to  any  of  the  slaughter  houses? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  think  so.  I  think  the  same  conditions  would  exist. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  They  buy  practically  at  the  same  figures 
that  you  do  ? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  And  the  same  prices  prevail  f 

Mr.  McCoY.  Freights  considered;  yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  You  spoke  in  your  paper  of  condemning 
cattle  by  virtue  of  inspection  if  found  diseased.  What  becomes  of 
those  cattle? 

Mr.  McCoY.  The  different  markets  have  different  methods  of  dealing 
with  them.  In  the  Chicago  market  that  matter  is  under  the  direction 
of  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  through  its  chief  veterinarian,  an 
inspector  for  the  State  of  Illinois,  an  inspector  for  Chicago,  Cook  County, 
and  the  secretary  of  the  Chicago  Live  Stock  Exchange.  The  principle 
under  which  they  operate  there  is  this :  A  man  is  fined  $50  if  he  under- 
takes to  sell  a  diseased  animal  knowingly.  If  an  animal  is  found  witL 
actinomyt'osis,  or  "lumpy  jaw,"  it  is  the  duty  of  the  salesman  to  imme- 
diately cut  that  animal  out  from  the  herd,  and  place  a  tag  in  his  ear. 
Then  the  committee,  which  consists  of  the  persons  I  have  named,  repre- 
senting the  Government,  the  State,  the  city,  and  the  exchange,  meet 
and  decide  from  observation  whether  that  animal  is  sufficiently  diseased 
to  render  it  unfit  for  food.  If  it  is,  it  is  taken  to  a  rendering  establish- 
ment, and  put  into  soap,  so  far  ns  I  know. 

If  it  is  a  doubtful  case,  and  they  are  unable  to  tell  without  a  post- 

(*100) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  683 

mortem  examination  whether  it  is  so  diseased  or  not,  the  committee 
takes  the  animal  to  a  slaughtering  establishment,  and  it  is  killed.  A 
post-mortem  examination  is  then  made,  and  if  the  animal  is  diseased 
sufficiently  to  be  considered  unhealthy,  kerosene  is  poured  over  the 
carcass.  If  it  is  the  judgment  of  the  committee  that  the  animal  is  not 
diseased  sufficiently  to  render  it  unfit  for  food,  it  is  sold  in  the  open 
market. 

In  our  city  the  Government  inspectors  are  all  over  the  yards.  They 
stand  in  the  gates  as  the  cattle  go  to  the  scales.  There  are  two  inspect- 
ors at  each  scale  as  the  cattle  run  in  the  gate.  They  examine  those 
cattle,  making  what  we  term  an  ante-mortem  examination;  and  if, 
from  the  appearance  of  any  one  of  the  cattle,  they  deem  it  diseased,  it 
is  cut  out.  Then,  after  those  cattle  go  to  the  slaughtering  establish- 
ment, they  are  reinspected  under  ante-mortem  examination;  and  when 
they  are  slaughtered  they  are  inspected  post-mortem,  as  I  have  stated. 

Now,  in  that  post-mortem  examination  the  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture, through  its  chief  veterinarians,  operating  under  the  Bureau  of 
Animal  Industry,  has  sole  power  to  decide  as  to  whether  that  animal 
is  or  is  not  so  diseased  as  to  render  it  unfit  for  human  food.  If  it  is  it 
goes  into  the  rendering  tank  and  is  made  into  soap.  If  it  is  healthy  it 
is  put  on  the  market  and  sold. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  You  say  that  kerosene  is  poured  over  it? 

Mr.  McCoy.  That  is  the  Chicago  system ;  yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  If  it  is  found  to  be  diseased! 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Then  what  is  done? 

Mr.  McCoY.  It  goes  into  the  rendering  tanks  for  soap. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  Mr.  McCoy,  the  object  of  putting  the  kero- 
sene on  it  is  to  absolutely  unfit  it  for  human  food,  so  that  it  can  not  be 
used.  It  is  to  prevent  any  fraud. 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  You  do  not  undertake  to  say  that  that  would 
prevent  the  fat  of  the  animal  from  being  used  for  oleomargarine,  do 
you? 

Mr.  McCoY.  If  you  put  coal  oil  all  over  it? 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Yes;  can  you  not  extract  that  by  some 
process. 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  do  not  know,  sir.  I  am  not  sufficiently  posted  to 
answer  as  to  that,  but  I  should  not  think  you  could.  Even  if  that  were 
not  the  case,  the  United  States  Government  has  its  official  right  there, 
and  it  is  his  duty  to  see  that  that  animal  is  not  used  for  food;  and  the 
burden  falls  upon  the  Government. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  coal-oil  process  is  a  local  law,  a  local  ordinance. 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes;  in  Chicago. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  it  was  enacted  because  a  large  crowd  of  fellows 
got  together  and  sold  the  carcases,  and  shipped  them  down  to  the  Ful- 
ton street  market,  and  sold  them  there.  The  idea  of  pouring  the  oil 
over  it  was  to  prevent  it  from  going  down  to  Fulton  street. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  Mr. McCoy,  may  I  ask  you  a  question?  Do 
you  consider  it  impossible  to  get  diseased  meat,  or  the  product  of  any 
part  of  the  animal,  upon  the  market  for  sale  as  food  under  our  present 
inspection? 

Mr.  McCOY.  No,  sir;  I  do  not;  nor  dfc  I  believe  that  laws  generally 
absolutely  eradicate  crime.  I  believe  that  some  men  will  steal  in  spite 
of  the  laws  on  the  subject. 


684  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Bepresentative  BAILEY.  In  a  general  way,  then — in  the  general 
application  of  it? 

Mr.  McCoY.  In  a  general  way,  I  think  it  has  been  a  very  broad  step; 
and  our  live-stock  markets  have  assisted  the  Government,  and  worked 
hand  and  glove  with  it  for  the  past  seven  or  eight  years  to.  perfect  the 
system ;  and  while  there  may  be  some  criticism  upon  it,  I  am  here  to 
say  that  it  has  done  good  work. 

Representative  BAILEY.  I  will  say  that  my  experience  (and  it  has 
been  considerable  general  experience)  is  that  I  have  never  been  able  to 
shove  one  through  that  had  lumpy  jaw,  or  anything  that  looked  bad 
on  it. 

Representative  ALLEN.  You  do  not  mean  to  say  that  you  have  had 
the  disposition 

Representative  BAILEY.  Well,  I  have  turned  them  over  to  these 
Kansas  City  fellows  to  sell  them  if  they  could,  but  they  cut  them  out, 
and  I  lost  them.  It  has  been  claimed  that  these  cattle  go  on  the  mar- 
ket. They  do  not.  I  do  not  believe  it  can  be  done.  They  are  sold  for 
what  they  will  bring.  Five  dollars  a  head  is  what  they  get  out  of  them. 

Representative  STOKES.  Mr.  McCoy,  you  referred  to  the  communica- 
tion of  tuberculosis  through  milch  cattle.  That  disease  is  communi- 
cated through  germs,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  MoOoY.  I  suppose  so,  sir.  I  am  not  an  expert  on  that  question, 
but  that  is  my  understanding. 

Representative  STOKES.  It  has  been  impossible,  as  I  understand,  to 
eliminate  those  germs  from  the  milk,  or  to  so  sterilize  the  milk  as  to 
render  it  absolutely  safe,  if  the  cow  from  which  the  milk  is  taken 
is  infected  with  tuberculosis? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  STOKES.  On  the  other  hand,  are  you  sufficiently 
familiar  with  the  process  of  making  oleomargarine  to  know  whether, 
during  that  process,  there  is  any  step  taken  to  eliminate  a  similar  germ 
from  the  fat  of  the  cattle? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Of  course,  not  having  any  chemical  knowledge  or  any 
knowledge  of  what  degree  of  heat  it  would  take  to  kill  the  germs  or 
bacilli,  I  can  not  answer  that  question  positively.  I  have  been  through 
packing  establishments,  however,  in  the  course  of  my  business,  where 
this  oleo,  this  caul  fat  and  leaf  lard,  is  put  to  a  very  high  point  of  heat; 
and  it  is  my  impression  that  the  heat  is  sufficient  to  kill  the  germs. 
Whether  it  does  or  not  I  could  not  say. 

Representative  STOKES.  I  apprehended  that  at  some  stage  of  the 
process  these  products  were  subjected  to  high  temperatures,  and  I 
wanted  to  develop  that  fact — whether,  so  far  as  your  information  goes, 
it  is  a  sufficient  degree  of  heat  to  destroy  those  germs  or  not? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  should  say,  sir,  that  if  an  extremely  high  boiling  point 
would  kill  the  germs,  they  would  be  killed;  because  I  have  seen  this 
product  boiling  at  a  very  high  temperature. 

Representative  DAHLE.  Have  you  seen  the  stuff  boiled  that  the  oleo- 
margarine has  come  from? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  have  seen  it  when  it  came  out  of  the  tanks. 

Representative  DAHLE.  In  a  boiling  condition? 

Mr.  McCoY.  1  do  not  know.  I  have  seen  it  where  they  had  it  in 
their  furnaces,  or  rather  their  boilers,  and  after  it  is  poured  into  their 
tanks.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  ever  seen  exactly  how  high  it  was 
boiled  or  how  hard  it  was  boiled.  It  seems  to  me  it  was  boiling  at  a 
pretty  good  boiling  point  as  it  came  out  of  those  furnaces. 

(*102) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  685 

Representative  STOKES.  You  do  not  know  what  the  boiling  point  of 
those  oils  is,  do  you? 

Mr.  McCoY.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  It  is  higher,  I  know,  than  that  of  water- 
higher  than  212°— but  I  do  not  know  just  what  it  is. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  Mr.  Dahle  asked  was  if  you  saw  it  in  a 
boiling  condition.  When  it  came  from  the  tanks  it  was  at  a  high 
temperature  ? 

Mr.  McCoY.  A  high  temperature;  yes,  sir;  very  hot;  but  I  do  not 
know  that  I  have  ever  seen  it  at  a  high  boiling  temperature.  When  I 
come  to  think  about  it,  it  was  up  where  I  could  not  see  that  part  of  it. 

Representative  STOKES.  It  has  to  boil  in  order  to  extract  the  oil, 
does  it  not? 

Mr.  McCoY.  It  had  to  *boil  in  order  to  get  it  to  the  consistency  it 
was. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  What  do  you  think  will  be  the  result  of  this 
bill,  if  passed,  upon  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  believe  that  the  first  result,  as  a  matter  of  course,  will 
be  the  closing  of  the  oleomargarine  factories. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  You  think  it  will  prohibit  the  manufacture 
of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  McOoY.  I  think  it  will,  sir;  that  is,  it  would  not  absolutely  pro- 
hibit it,  probably,  but  it  would  destroy  it. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  You  mean  the  legitimate  manufacture? 

Mr.  McCoY.  The  legitimate  manufacture.  It  would,  in  my  opinion, 
destroy  that.  If  those  factories  are  closed  I  think  a  great  many 
laborers  who  have  made  that  a  special  study,  a  special  line  of  business, 
will  be  thrown  out  of  employment. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  You  live  at  Kansas  City,  I  believe? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Have  you  ever  heard  any  complaints  on  the 
part  of  the  consumers  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  McCoY.  None  whatever. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Of  it  as  a  food  product? 

Mr.  McCoY.  No,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Is  there  any  complaint  that  comes  from  your 
section  of  the  country  with  reference  to  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  do  not  recall  that  I  have  ever  heard  of  any  complaint 
in  regard  to  it.  There  might  be  individual  cases  where  there  might 
be,  in  the  case  of  some  man  whose  taste  was  prejudiced. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  You  are  referring  to  the  consumers? 

Eepreseutative  ALLEN.  Yes;  of  course. 

Mr.  McCoY.  There  has  been  no  organized  complaint. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Now,  do  you  know  anything  about  the  retail 
sale  of  it  in  your  city  ? 

Mr.  McCoY.  No,  sir;  except  that  I  know  it  is  sold  very  largely. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Have  you  ever  bought  any? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  For  consumption  in  your  own  family? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  ALLEN.  In  what  kind  of  packages? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Square-brick  packages,  about  that  long  and  that  wide 
[indicating  about  3  or  4  inches]. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  What  weight? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  do  not  remember — probably  pound  packages. 

(*103) 


686  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Wrapped  in  paper? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Did  you  notice  any  stamp  upon  that  papei 
characterizing  it  as  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  What  position  did  that  stamp  bear  upon  the 
paper?  Was  it  where  it  could  be  seen,  or  was  it  concealed? 

Mr.  McOoY.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  generally  wrapped  up  in  the  shape  of 
a  brick  and  folded  at  the  end,  with  the  brand  upon  it.  Some  packages 
bear  one  brand  and  some  another. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Was  that  plain  to  be  seen  by  the  purchasers? 

Mr.  McOoY.  It  was  whenever  I  have  bought  it. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  As  far  as  you  have  bought  it,  and  as  far  as 
you  have  observed  the  sale,  is  that  the  custom  that  prevails  in  your 
country,  in  the  sale  of  oleomargarine,  in  the  way  of  exhibiting  the 
stamp  ? 

Mr.  McOoY.  Well,  I  am  unable  to  say  whether  it  is  sold  out  of  the 
tub  or  not.  I  never  bought  any  out  of  the  tub. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  I  mean  in  the  different  places  where  you 
have  bought  it — the  different  stores — is  that  the  way  it  is  sold? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir;  but,  as  I  say,  whether  those  same  stores  use 
the  tub,  the  bucket,  or  not,  I  do  not  know.  I  have  only  bought  it  in 
bricks. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  What  do  you  think  of  it  yourself  as  a  food 
article? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  think  it  is  a  very  good  article  of  food. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  What  is  the  retail  price  of  it  in  your  city? 

Mr.  McCoY.  It  varies  at  different  times,  according  to  quality,  from 
15  to  22  cents. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  From  15  to  22  cents  a  pound? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  What  is  the  price  of  creamery  butter  there? 

Mr.  McCoY.  We  very  frequently  buy  it  for  almost  the  same  price — 
a  little  bit  more. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Have  you  had  any  occasion  in  your  own 
family  to  compare  the  relative  merits  of  the  two  products?  If  so,  what 
has  been  the  result? 

Mr.  McOoY.  Well,  no,  sir;  not  as  an  experiment. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  were 
a  cattle  dealer — shipper — a  seller  of  cattle  and  a  seller  of  cattle  in  the 
market? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir;  my  principal  business  is  that  of  a  live-stock 
commission  merchant.  My  brother  and  I  together  run  a  farm  where 
we  feed  cattle,  raise  cattle,  feed  hogs,  and  raise  hogs. 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  Mr.  Chairman,  can  I  ask  a  question? 

The  CHAIRMAN,  Yes. 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  You  stated  a  while  ago  that  the  probable 
effect  of  the  passage  of  this  bill  would  be  to  close  the  oleomargarine 
factories.  Now,  what  is  the  present  tax  upon  that  article?  Is  it  not 
2  cents? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  think  so,  sir. 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  Does  not  this  bill  reduce  it  to  one-quarter  of 
a  cent? 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  That  is  the  uncolored  oleomargarine,  I  would 
suggest. 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  That  is  what  I  am  getting  at.    If  the  inanu 

(*104:) 


OLEOMARGAKINE.  G8  7 

facturers  are  able  to  live  prosperously,  as  they  seem  to  be  doing,  under 
a  tax  of  2  cents  per  pound,  will  tliey  not  prosper  under  a  tax  of  one- 
quarter  of  a  cent? 

Mr.  McCoy.  They  should,  if  the  article  were  as  palatable  in  its  light 
color.  As  we  all  know,  it  is  naturally  white. 

Representative  LAMB.  Does  the  fact  of  its  being  colored  make  it  more 
palatable? 

Mr.  McCoY.  It  would  very  much  to  me,  sir;  I  suppose  it  would  to 
other  people. 

Representative  LAMB.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  when  it  is  colored,  it  is  a 
fraud  upon  butter,  an  imitation  of  butter? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  be,  if  it  is  sold  under  its 
name.  Probably  ten,  twelve,  or  fifteen  years  ago  the  public  might  have 
been  imposed  on  in  that  way;  but  I  do  not  suppose  in  this  day  there  is 
a  person  in  the  country  of  even  ordinary  intelligence  who  does  not 
understand  that  it  is  made;  and  it  is  not  sold  as  butter. 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  But  is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  same  article,  out 
of  the  same  vessel,  is  being  sold  both  as  oleomargarine  and  as  butter, 
now,  in  all  of  the  commercial  centers  of  this  country?  Is  not  this 
identical  article  sold  both  as  oleomargarine  and  as  butter,  accord- 
ing to  the  request  made  by  the  consumer  of  the  merchant? 

Mr.  McCoY.  1  do  not  know,  sir;  I  am  not  posted  on  that  subject. 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  Those  facts  seem  to  have  been  brought  out 
here,  and  I  know  from  my  personal  knowledge  that  they  do  exist.  I 
simply  asked  those  questions  to  see  how  the  current  trend  of  thought 
upon  that  subject  is.  I  am  only  an  inquirer  myself.  That  is  all  I 
wanted  to  ask. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  said,  Mr.  McCoy,  that  it  is  possible  to  place  a 
diseased  carcass  on  the  market.  Is  it  possible  for  a  diseased  carcass 
to  pass  into  the  hands  of  those  who  use  the  fat  for  oleo  oil? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Not  from  a  killing  establishment.  Of  course,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, some  man  in  the  country  districts  of  Illinois,  at  some  place,  might 
kill  his  own  steer,  and,  under  cover  of  night,  slip  in  and  sell  it  to  some 
oleomargarine  factory  in  the  city  of  Chicago;  and  it  might  slip  through 
in  that  way.  Of  course,  it  is  possible  for  that  to  occur. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  possible  to  work  in  a  diseased  carcass  in  the 
institutions  where  the  great  bulk  of  the  slaughtering  is  done  in  this 
country? 

Mr.  McCoY.  JSTo,  sir.  If  it  is  done,  it  would  have  to  be  done  through 
the  negligence  and  carelessness  or  the  corruption  of  a  Government 
official. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  But  in  case  such  a  carcass  should  get  into 
the  possession  of  the  oleo  maker,as  I  understand  the  matter,  the  product 
is  subjected  to  a  very  high  temperature  during  manufacture? 

Mr.  McCoY.  That  is  my  understanding,  sir.  From  what  I  have 
seen  of  the  factories,  I  think  it  is  put  to  a  very  high  boiling  point. 

Eepresentative  DAHLB.  Mr.  McCoy,  do  you  make  any  allowance  for 
the  amount  of  oleo  oil  that  is  exported,  or  may  be  exported,  in  calcu- 
lating, as  you  do,  the  loss  to  the  farmer  in  case  this  bill  should  be 
passed?  As  I  understand,  only  a  small  part  of  the  oleo  oil  which  is 
made  in  this  country  is  used  here,  and  the  larger  amount  is  exported. 
I  can  not  see  where  you  make  such  an  allowance.  Do  you? 

Mr.  McCoY.  No,  sir. 

Eepresentative  DAHLE.  Would  it  not  be  fair  to  make  such  an  allow- 
ance, knowing,  as  we  do,  that  by  far  the  larger  part  is  exported?  Is  not 
that  the  case? 

(*105) 


688  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  McCoy.  That  is  my  understanding,  that  the  larger  percentage 
of  the  manufactured  oleo  product  is  exported. 

Representative  STOKES.  Without  attempting  to  anticipate  the  gentle- 
man's answer  at  all,  I  would  like  to  supplement  the  question  by  this 
inquiry :  Is  it  not  a  fact  which  is  generally  recognized  with  regard  to 
all  export  commodities  that  the  price  of  the  exported  part  is  really  the 
principal  factor  in  determining  the  local  price? 

Mr.  McOoY.  As  a  general  rule  that  is  the  case,  yes,  sir;  because  it 
is  the  only  way  of  getting  rid  of  our  surplus. 

Representative  DAHLE.  About  how  much  is  exported  in  proportion 
to  what  is  used  here,  if  you  can  tell? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  can  not  tell,  except  from  a  statement  I  have  seen.  I 
may  be  wrong  in  my  recollection  of  it,  but  I  think  I  saw  it  stated  that 
132,000,000  pounds  were  exported  in  1898. 

Representative  DAHLE.  And  about  what  amount  would  be  used  here? 

Mr.  McCoY.  And  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  were  manufac- 
tured. Now,  that  is  my  recollection  of  it,  and  I  may  be  mistaken. 

Representative  DAHLE.  If  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  were 
manufactured  in  that  year,  then  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  total  amount 
of  oleo  oil  made  was  used  here  at  home? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Exactly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  contention,  then,  is  that  if  you  put  the  stamp 
of  disapproval  on  the  article  in  this  country  it  will  drive  it  out  of  the 
export  trade,  and  have  the  effect  of  reducing  the  value  of  that  steer  fat 
to  the  value  of  tallow? 

Mr.  McGoY.  That  is  the  point  which  I  made  in  the  last  part  of  my 
argument. 

Representative  DAHLE.  Mr.  McCoy,  along  those  lines  let  me  ask  this 
question :  In  your  opinion  does  the  feeling  against  this  bill  come  from 
people  who  are  afraid  of  oleomargarine,  claiming  that  it  is  not  health- 
ful, or  does  the  feeling  come  from  the  manufacturers  of  butter?  Do 
the  remonstrances  against  this  bill,  in  your  opinion,  come  from  the  pro- 
ducers of  butter  or  from  health  officers? 

Representative  STOKES.  And  the  people? 

Representative  DAHLE.  And  the  people,  along  these  lines;  yes. 

Mr.  McCoY.  You  say  there  are  remonstrances  against  this  bill  ? 

Representative  DAHLE.  Yes;  or,  rather,  we  get  prayers  asking  for  its 
passage. 

Mr.  McCoY.  And  some  against  its  passage. 

Representative  DAHLE.  Now  then,  do  those  come  from  the  farmers, 
do  you  suppose,  who  produce  butter,  or  who  produce  the  milk  that  is 
made  into  butter;  or  do  they  come  from  other  sources? 

Mr.  MoCoY.  You  say  you  get  petitions  favoring  its  passage?  I  sup- 
pose they  would  naturally  come  from  people  in  dairy  districts,  who 
have  milch  cows,  and  sell  their  milk  to  creameries,  and  make  their  own 
butter.  The  protests  from  our  country,  however,  come  from  the  cattle 
raisers,  the  farmers,  the  feeders,  the  stockmen,  and  the  manufacturers 
of  oleomagarine. 

Representative  BAILEY.  And  the  men  who  sell  it? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  do  not  know  that  there  have  been  any  official  pro- 
tests, so  far  as  that  is  concerned. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Well,  there  have.    I  have  received  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  you  are  a  consumer.  Will  you  protest,  as  an 
individual  consumer,  on  the  ground  that  you  ought  to  have  the  privilege 
of  buying  colored  oleomargarine1? 

Mr.  McCoY.  Yes,  sir.    1  think  if  it  is  a  pure  and  healthful  article  of 

(*106) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  689 

food — and  it  is  within  the  province  of  this  committee  to  determine  that 
fact — and  can  be  sold  for  a  less  price  than  a  higher  valued  product, 
I  believe  every  man  has  got  a  right  to  buy  it  if  he  wants  to. 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  Mr.  McCoy,  are  there  not  three  classes,  so  to 
speak,  advocating  the  passage  of  this  bill — first,  the  dairy;  second,  the 
small  farmer  throughout  all  the  rural  districts  of  this  country;  and 
third,  the  man  who  sells  this  article,  the  butter  merchants  in  all  the 
towns?  From  the  hearings  at  which  I  have  been  present  and  the 
observations  that  I  have  made  upon  both  sides,  I  have  been  convinced 
that  those  three  factors  enter  into  the  application  here  for  the  passage 
of  this  bill — the  dairyman,  the  small  farmer  (and  the  large  farmer,  so 
far  as  that  is  concerned,  the  butter  maker),  and  the  man  who  sells  the 
butter  in  the  town.  I  gather  that  from  observations  in  my  own  dis- 
trict and  from  telegrams  received  this  morning.  I  have  received  half 
a  dozen  or  more  telegrams  this  morning  from  men  who  sell  this  butter 
to  the  working  men  and  the  laboring  people.  Now,  if  any  protests  come 
from  the  consumer,  it  seems  to  me  they  would  reach  us  through  the 
man  who  sells  the  butter  to  the  consumer. 

Representative  ALLEN.  I  will  ask  the  gentleman  from  Virginia, 
right  there,  if  his  district  ships  any  beef  cattle  or  sells  any  beef  cattle 
on  the  market? 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  A  good  many  people  in  my  district  fatten 
beef  cattle  and  sell  them. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  And  ship  them  to  the  market  and  sell  them? 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  And  ship  them  to  the  market. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Do  you  know  the  amount  of  the  exportation? 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  No;  but  it  is  nothing  in  comparison  with 
your  district,  for  this  reason :  My  district  wa&  a  storm  center  of  war, 
and  it  never  has  recovered  from  it,  while  along  the  rivers,  the  James 
Eiver,  etc.,  there  are  numbers  of  men  engaged  in  the  cattle  industry. 
They  not  only  raise  them,  but  they  buy  a  great  many  steers  in  the  fall 
to  fatten.  They  feed  their  corn  and  hay  to  them  in  the  fall  and  winter, 
and  turn  them  on  the  grass  in  the  spring.  Some  of  the  best  people  in 
Eichmond  buy  those  cattle  raised  in  my  district. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Lamb,  you  say  there  are  three  elements.  Now, 
after  all,  are  not  the  man  who  milks  the  cow,  who  produces  the  milk, 
the  dairyman  who  makes  the  butter,  and  the  agent  who  sells  it  for  them 
in  the  city,  all  one  interest,  and  not  three  interests? 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  I  did  not  say  they  were  separate.  As  I  say, 
they  are  three  factors. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Three  factors  of  one  interest? 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  like  the  clerks  and  the  teamsters 

Eepresentative  LAMB.  There  is  a  community  of  interest,  yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  one  interest;  without  any  element  of  it,  any 
one  element,  there  would  be  no  interest. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  one  ques- 
tion myself,  growing  out  of  his  remark. 

Representative  LAMB.  I  do  not  know  that  I  am  on  the  stand.  I  am 
getting  information  here.  This  is  the  first  time  I  have  not  had  an 
opportunity  to  hear  the  other  side.  However,  go  on. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  I  thought  the  gentleman  was  giving  us  a 
little  testimony  a  while  ago,  from  his  personal  knowledge.  That  is  the 
reason  I  ask. 

^Representative  LAMB.  Yes;  I  will  hear  you  on  that  point. 

Representative  STOKES.  The  question  I  wanted  to  ask  you  was  this: 
*S.  Eep.  2043 M  (*io7) 


690  OLEOMAKGARINE. 

The  gentlemen  seem  to  assume  that  the  country  merchant,  the  local 
merchant,  the  local  groceryinan,  who  sells  this  butter  or  butterine  to 
the  consumer,  is  the  mouthpiece  of  the  consumer — that  their  interests 
are  identical. 

Representative  LAMB.  To  a  certain  extent. 

Representative  STOKES.  It  seems  to  me  that  in  the  general  concep- 
tion, they  are  considered  to  be  diametrically  opposed — that  is,  that  the 
seller  and  buyer  are  usually  on  opposite  sides  of  the  proposition. 

Representative  LAMB.  Yes.  Well,  I  mean  by  that  that  the  most  nat- 
ural thing  in  the  world  would  be  for  the  seller  of  that  butter  to  respond 
quickly  to  the  demands  of  his  customer.  If  his  customer  preferred  this 
manufactured  article  to  genuine  butter,  he  would  say  to  him,  "We  pre- 
fer this  oleomargarine,  and  we  will  buy  it."  The  fact  of  the  business  is 
that  it  is  not  so. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Let  me  give  a  little  personal  experience 
on  that  subject.  I  have  spent  parts  of  two  days  in  this  market  here. 
I  have  made  two  trips  down  through  it  for  the  purpose  of  getting  infor- 
mation on  that  very  point.  I  went  down  there  absolutely  incognito ; 
and  I  tried  my  best  to  buy  oleomargarine  for  butter.  I  went  to  this  place 
and  to  that,  and  did  my  best  to  do  it,  without  their  knowing  a  thing 
about 

Representative  LAMB.  What  did  you  ask  for  ? 

Representative  BAILEY.  I  asked  for  butter.  I  would  say,  "What 
do  you  sell  your  best  creamery  butter  for?"  "Thirty-five  and  40 
cents."  "What  have  you  got  some  other  grade  for?"  They  would  say 
that  they  had  a  cheaper  grade  down  to  28  cents ;  and  I  think  the  lowest 
butter  I  saw  or  had  priced  to  me  was  25  cents.  When  it  got  below 
that,  it  was  oleomargarine  or  butterine  every  time. 

Now,  I  was  unable  in  that  market  to  buy  a  single  pound  of  it;  and 
I  could  not  get  a  single  man  to  admit  to  me  down  there  that  it  was 
sold — not  a  single  man.  Now,  I  want  you  to  go  down  there,  Mr.  Lamb. 
I  will  tell  you  what  I  will  do.  I  will  bet  you  a  $5  bill  that,  if  you 
choose  to  try  it,  you  can  not  get  one  of  those  men  to  sell  oleomargarine 
to  you  for  butter. 

Representative  LAMB.  Do  you  know  the  reason? 

Representative  BAILEY.  I  do  not  know ;  I  suppose  the  reason  is  that 
it  is  a  violation  of  law.  That  is  the  reason  they  gave  me,  that  it  is  a 
violation  of  law,  and  that  the  law  was  enforced. 

Representative  LAMB.  I  understand  that  the  law  is  not  enforced. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Does  not  that  settle  the  whole  thing? 

Representative  ALLEN.  Will  not  the  enforcement  of  law  remedy  the 
whole  thing? 

Representative  LAMB.  Is  not  this  law  trying  to  supplement  the  State 
acts  in  doing  that  very  thing?  There  is  not  a  better  law  in  the  32  States 
than  Virginia  has  got  on  her  statute  books  in  regard  to  this  matter,  but 
it  seems  to  be  utterly  impossible  to  enforce  it  for  some  reason  or  other. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Because  it  is  against  public  sentiment.  The 
consumers  do  not  want  it  enforced.  That  is  the  reason. 

Representative  LAMB.  Well,  I  do  not  think  it  is  against  public  senti- 
ment in  my  State.  I  can  not  tell  the  public  sentiment  everywhere,  of 
course. 

Representative  BAILEY.  You  know,  personally,  that  that  is  the  case 
in  your  section,  do  you? 

Representative  LAMB.  Oh,  yes. 

Representative  DAHLE.  I  notice  that  the  gentleman  had  something 
to  say  regarding  the  value  of  milk  made  into  butter,  or  of  the  value  of 

(*108) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  691 

butter,  since  the  introduction  of  oleomargarine.  I  believe  you  quoted 
that  up  to  1890,  and  stopped  there.  Now,  what  has  been  the  tendency 
of  the  price  of  milk  during  the  last  ten  years,  especially  during  the 
winter  mouths,  since  oleomargarine  got  to  be  more  and  more  commonly 
used? 

Mr.  McCoY.  I  am  unable  to  say,  Mr.  Dahle,  because  I  have  never 
looked  the  question  up.  But,  if  you  will  remember,  1  dealt  with  it  in  a 
general  way.  I  stated  that  while  the  dairy  people  had  been  able  to 
hold  their  own  and  increase  their  dairy  herds,  the  cattlemen  had  suf- 
fered a  depreciation  of  over  $9,000,000  by  reason  of  hard  times,  and 
there  was  not  money  in  the  business,  and  it  drove  them  out  of  it,  while 
the  indications  were  that  the  dairy  men  had  been  prosperous,  because 
they  had  increased  their  herds  in  the  State  of  Nebraska 

Eepresentative  DAHLE.  During  what  years? 

Mr.  McOoY.  From  1890  to  1900. 

Eepresentative  DAHLE.  But  now  I  know  that  the  price  is  different — 
that  the  value  of  milk  has  gone  down. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much? 

Eepresentative  DAHLE.  It  is  hard  to  say  how  much. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  was  it  prior  to  1890? 

Eepresentative  DAHLE.  Well,  it  ranged  differently,  but  anyone  who 
has  handled  butter  knows  this,  that  butter  has  been  lower  during  the 
winters  of  the  past  two  years  than  it  was.  There  has  been  a  decline. 
This  winter  it  is  higher,  but  there  has  been  a  decline,  nevertheless. 
Instead  of  the  market  going  up,  as  you  suggested  there,  the  market, 
since  1890,  has  been  going  down. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  market  for  milk? 

Eepresentative  DAHLE.  The  market  for  milk  in  the  winter  months. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  costs  just  1  cent  a  quart  more  to  buy  milk  in 
Chicago  now  than  it  did  two  years  ago. 

Eepresentative  DAHLE.  That  is  very  likely 5  I  know  nothing  about 
that;  but  it  is  milk  made  into  butter  in  the  country  that  I  am  speaking 
of.  I  happen  to  have  dealt  in  inilk  for  these  many  years,  so  that  I 
know  whereof  I  speak. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  been  feeding  a  family  of  about  15  for  a  good 
many  years  and  I  know  whereof  I  speak,  too. 

Eepresentative  DAHLE.  I  have  handled  1,000  pounds,  then,  for  every 
1  your  family  has  purchased. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  have  not  paid  for  it  as  I  have. 

After  informal  discussion  among  members  of  the  committee,  an 
adjournment  was  taken  until  Wednesday,  April  4, 1900,  at  10  o'clock 
a.  m. 


WEDNESDAY,  April  11,  1900 — 10.30  a.  m. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  W.  Lorimer  in  the 
chair. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Aldredge,  the  committee  will  be  glad  to  hear 
your  views  on  the  Grout  bill. 

STATEMENT  OF  GEORGE  N.  ALDREDGE. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  and  GENTLEMEN  of  the  COMMITTEE  :  I  have  made 
some  notes  with  reference  to  the  discussion,  and  I  am  afraid  that  I  will 
occupy  too  much  of  the  committee's  time.  There  are  representatives 

(*109) 


692  OLEOMAKGAEINB. 

here  from  Texas,  Arkansas,  Tennessee,  and  Mississippi,  and  I  would 
be  glad  tu  hear  from  all  of  them;  and  I  hope  tke committee  will  cut  me 
off  in  time  to  give  these  gentlemen  ample  opportunity  to  be  heard. 

I  desire  to  be  entirely  candid  with  the  committee.  I  have  a  little 
stock  in  a  cotton-seed  oil  mill,  and  was  appointed  by  the  Oil  Mill  Asso- 
ciation of  the  State  of  Texas  to  come  here  as  a  delegate.  But  my 
interest  as  a  farmer,  raising  the  seed  itself,  is  fifty  times  as  great  as  my 
interest  in  the  oil  mill.  In  ordinarily  good  seasons  I  raise  about  a 
thousand  bales  of  cotton  a  year,  and  this  question  affects  me  vitally. 

Gentlemen,  every  section  of  this  country  within  the  last  three  years 
has  become  prosperous,  except  the  cotton  raising  South.  The  wave  of 
prosperity  has  never  struck  that  section.  Its  people  are  as  poor  to  day 
as  they  ever  have  been.  And  why?  They  have  been  making  cotton 
at  4J  and  5  cents  per  pound.  No  man  can  do  that  and  do  more  than 
barely  live.  It  is  a  life  and  death  struggle  for  his  very  existence.  The 
manufacturing  interests  have  prospered ;  the  cattle  interests  have  pros- 
pered; all  interests  have  prospered,  except  the  man  that  raises  cotton 
and  sells  it  at  4J  and  5  cents. 

There  has  lately  been  a  little  spurt  in  the  price  of  cotton,  owing  to  an 
exceedingly  short  crop.  But,  gentlemen,  the  farmers  of  the  South,  the 
men  who  till  the  ground,  did  not  get  the  benefit  of  that  fise.  They  are 
poor  people;  they  were  in  debt  to  the  merchants.  They  had  to  sell 
their  cotton  early  in  the  season  for  6  cents;  and  the  merchants  and 
the  bankers  and  the  speculators  have  reaped  the  benefit  of  the  rise  in 
cotton,  and  not  the  men  that  made  it. 

I  desire  to  show  you  briefly  what  a  cotton  farmer  has  to  contend  with. 
I  mean  a  tenant  farmer.  The  great  bulk  of  them  are  negroes. 

He  can  cultivate  about  40  acres  of  land.  Say  that  he  puts  half  of 
that  in  corn.  The  corn  will  only  furnish  bread  for  his  family  and  feed 
his  pair  of  mules  or  horses  and  raise  the  pigs  for  his  family.  Very  few 
of  them  ever  sell  corn  in  the  South.  Now,  on  the  other  20  acres  he 
raises  7  bales  of  cotton.  That  is  a  little  over  one-third  of  a  bale  to  the 
acre,  and  that  is  a  good  average  for  the  whole  South.  Those  7  bales  of 
cotton,  at  5  cents  a  pound,  are  worth  $175.  From  those  7  bales  he  gets 
3£  tons  of  seed,  worth  $10  per  ton.  That  is  $35.  Then  his  whole  crop 
nets  him  $210.  But  he  pays  from  $2.50  to  $3,  say  $2.50,  an  acre  rent 
on  the  40  acres.  That  takes  out  $100,  leaving  him  net  for  the  services 
of  himself,  a  pair  of  mules,  a  wagon,  and  all  of  his  family  of  women 
and  children  working  during  the  fall  picking  this  cotton,  30  cents  a 
day  for  the  whole- family. 

Now,  you  are  having  strikes  all  over  the  North  by  men  who  earn  from 
$2  to  $5  a  day.  And  yet  here  are  a  class  of  people  who  are  striving  to 
live  and  support  a  family  upon  30  cents  a  day  for  the  whole  family. 
These  are  the  people  that  1  represent  before  you. 

Last  Christmas  eve,  a  year  ago,  I  received  a  telephone  message  from 
my  plantation  manager.  My  plantations  are  near  Hern.  I  live  at 
Dallas,  140  miles  from  there.  I  received  a  telephone  message  that  the 
town  was  full  of  my  negroes,  and  that  they  wanted  money  to  buy  a 
bottle  of  whisky.  They  did  not  have  it.  Now,  these  negroes  had 
worked  faithfully.  I  had  no  complaint  to  make.  In  the  winter  storms 
and  in  the  heat  of  summer  they  had  bent  to  the  plow  and  the  hoe,  and 
they  had  lived  on  cornbread  and  bacon  and  cheap  molasses  throughout 
the  year.  They  had  made  985  bales  of  cotton,  and  yet  they  could  not 
buy  a  bottle  of  whisky  to  get  drunk  on  at  Christmas.  Well,  I  tele- 
phoned my  manager  to  buy  every  one  of  them  a  bottle,  on  the  ground 

(•110) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  693 

that  uoder  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
States,  a  man  had  an  inalienable  right  to  get  drunk  on  Christmas,  and 
I  furnished  it  to  them.  [Laughter.] 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  feel  that  we  of  the  South  have  been  stepchildren 
of  this  Government,  For  a  hundred  years  we  have  been  paying  the 
indirect  import  tax  on  almost  all  that  we  used  for  the  benefit  of  the 
factories  North.  We  have  been  paying  the  fiddler  for  a  hundred  years, 
and  have  never  been  allowed  to  dance  in  the  set.  But  after  a  while  we 
discovered  that  there  was  money  in  cotton-seed  oil,  and  all  over  the 
South  we  built  up  cotton-oil  factories.  But  as  soon  as  we  did,  why, 
here  comes  the  dairy  interest,  the  curled  darlings  of  the  nation,  and 
says,  "  You  shall  not  produce  a  product  that  competes  with  ours."  That 
is  the  proposition.  Why,  do  you  know  that  we  are  paying  taxes  to-day 
on  olive  oil  from  Italy,  high  taxes — why?  Because  there  are  a  few  olive 
orchards  in  California.  We  have  more  cotton  interest  in  one  county  in 
Texas  than  they  have  olive  interest  in  the  whole  State  of  California. 
See  how  anxious  the  Government  is  to  protect  every  interest  in  the 
Government  until  it  comes  to  the  poor  devil  of  a  cotton  man. 

Yes,  sir;  we  began  manufacturing  cotton- seed  oil.  One  of  the 
products  of  cotton  seed  oil  is  oleomargarine.  Now  they  say,  "  Because, 
forsooth,  oleomargarine  competes  with  our  product,  we,  the  Imperial 
Cow- Milkers  of  the  United  States  are  to  be  protected  by  this  Govern- 
ment against  the  poor  cotton  farmer." 

Well,  if  our  own  Government  is  going  to  kick  us,  that  teaches  all  of 
Europe  to  kick  us.  Any  mother  that  kicks  her  own  child  licenses  the 
whole  world  to  kick  and  cuff  it.  And  they  will  quickly  follow  suit. 
We  are  in  competition  over  there  with  the  olive  interest,  mainly  of 
Spain  and  France;  and  they  will  kick.  We  thought  it  horrible  that 
those  Dutchmen  over  there  objected  to  the  importation  of  our  meat 
against  them;  yet  they  are  foreigners  to  us. 

Now,  it  is  not  the  best  butter  makers  that  are  in  this  fight  against 
oleomargarine  at  all.  We  do  not  compete  with  the  Elgin  people. 
They  do  not  complain  of  us.  There  are  rich  people  all  over  this  country 
that  are  going  to  have  butter,  and  pay  for  it;  and  we  are  not  in  coin- 
petition  with  the  class  of  butter  they  buy.  But  when  you  go  down  to 
the  low  grades,  then  we  are;  and  they  are  the  people  that  are  com- 
plaining to-day.  I  heard  Bob  Ingersoll  make  a  speech  at  Forest 
Garden  in  1896,  in  the  political  campaign.  While  I  wanted  to  throw 
a  rock  at  him  all  the  time  he  was  talking,  some  things  he  said  have 
stuck  to  me.  I  remember  a  picture  he  drew  of  a  horse  race.  He 
said:  "Here  is  a  fine  race  horse,  with  flashing  eye  and  nostrils  dis- 
tended, and  sinews  of  steel,  ready  to  outfly  the  wind."  He  said :  "The 
owner  of  that  horse  does  not  object  if  somebody  wants  to  put  a  mule 
in  the  race.  But,"  he  said,  "every  owner  of  a  little  scrub,  who 
doesn't  believe  he  can  beat  a  mule,  and  is  contesting  for  second,  third, 
or  fourth  money  in  the  race,  objects  to  competition  with  a  mule."  And 
to-day  the  best  butter  makers  of  this  country,  the  clean  butter  makers, 
are  not  in  this  fight  against  oleomargarine;  but  it  is  these  men  that 
want  to  offend  the  nostrils  and  vitiate  the  taste  and  poison  the  stom- 
achs of  men  with  inferior  butter  that  are  clamoring  here  to  Congress 
to  shut  out  a  perfectly  pure,  clean  product,  with  which  they  find  they 
can  not  compete.  That  is  the  situation. 

What  is  oleomargarine,  gentlemen  ?  Now,  I  am  going  to  read  two  cer- 
tificates from  gentlemen  right  here  in  the  city.  One.  is  from  Professor 
Atwater.  It  is  only  a  few  lines:  "Butterine"  (which  is  oleomarga- 


694  OLEOMARGARINE. 

rine)  "is  perfectly  wholesome."  This  is  from  Prof.  W.  O.  Atwater, 
Director  of  the  United  States  Government  Agricultural  Experiment 
Station,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Butterine  is  perfectly  wholesome  and  healthy  and  has  a  high  nutritive  value. 
The  same  entirely  favorable  opinion  I  find  expressed  by  the  most  prominent  Euro- 
pean authorities,  English,  French,  and  German.  It  contains  essentially  the  same 
ingredients  as  natural  butter  from  cow's  milk.  It  is  perfectly  wholesome  and 
healthy,  and  has  a  high  nutritive  value. 

The  other  is  from  Prof.  Harvey  W.  Wiley,  Chief  Chemist  of  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture: 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  objection  to  the  use  of  oleomargarine.  It  is  clean, 
wholesome,  and  digestible.  When  it  is  to  be  kept  for  a  long  time  before  use,  as  on 
shipboard  or  in  distant  mining  camps — 

and  he  might  have  said,  in  the  Army — 

it  is  preferable  to  butter,  because  it  has  but  little  tendency  to  become  rancid.  For 
similar  reasons,  there  can  be  no  possible  objection  to  the  use  of  cotton-seed  oil  as  a 
substitute  for  lard,  or  when  mixed  with  lard. 

Now,  here  are  certificates  from  the  greatest  chemists  in  America  and 
Europe  outside  of  the  ones  that  I  have  read ;  but  I  will  not  take  up 
your  time  with  reading  them. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Just  hand  them,  if  you  please,  to  the 
stenographer,  so  that  they  maybe  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

(The  certificates  above  referred  to  by  the  witness  are  as  follows:) 

Prof.  G.  C.  Caldwell,  of  Cornell  University,  says: 

The  process  for  making  butterine,  when  properly  conducted,  is  cleanly  through- 
out, free  from  animal  tissue  or  other  impurities,  and  consists  of  pure  fat,  made  up 
of  the  fats  commonly  known  as  alaine  and  margarine.  It  possesses  no  qualities 
whatever  that  can  make  it  in  the  least  degree  unwholesome. 

Prof.  Paul  Schweitzer,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D.,  professor  of  chemistry,  Mis- 
souri State  University,  says : 

As  a  result  of  my  examination,  made  both  with  the  microscope  and  the  delicate 
chemical  tests  applicable  to  such  cases,  I  pronounce  butterine  to  be  wholly  and 
unequivocally  free  from  any  deleterious  or  in  the  least  objectionable  substances. 
Carefully  made  physiological  experiments  reveal  no  difference  whatever  in  the  pala- 
tability  and  digestibility  between  butteriue  and  butter. 

Dr.  Adolph  Jolles,  of  Vienna,  from  address  before  section  7  of  the 
International  Hygienic  Congress  at  Budapest,  says : 

As  regards  nutritive  value,  pure  butterine  or  oleomargarine  is  as  digestible  and 
nutritious  as  pure  butter. 

Prof.  George  F.  Barker,  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania: 

Butterine  is,  in  my  opinion,  quite  as  valuable  as  a  nutritive  agent  as  butter  itself. 
It  is  perfectly  wholesome  and  is  desirable  as  an  article  of  food.  I  can  see  no  reason 
why  butterine  should  not  be  an  entirely  satisfactory  equivalent  for  ordinary  butter, 
whether  considered  from  the  physiological  or  commercial  standpoint. 

Prof.  S.  W.  Johnson,  director  of  the  Connecticut  Agricultural  Experi- 
ment Station,  and  professor  of  agricultural  chemistry  at  Yale  College, 
New  Haven,  says: 

It  is  a  product  that  is  entirely  attractive  and  wholesome  as  food,  and  one  that  is 
for  all  ordinary  and  culinary  purposes  the  full  equivalent  of  good  butter  made  from 
cream.  1  regard  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  as  a  legitimate  and  beneficent 
industry. 

Dr.  A.  G.  Stockwell,  who  needs  no  introduction,  says  in  the  Scien- 
tific American : 

In  everyday  life  butter  is  very  essential.  Its  free  use  by  sufferers  from  wasting 
diseases  is  to  be  encouraged  to  the  utmost.  Considering  the  foregoing,  it  seems 


OLEOMARGARINE.  695 

strange  that  oleomargarine  has  not  been  thought  of  as  a  palatable  and  suitable  arti- 
cle of  diet  for  those  suffering  from  wasting  diseases. 

It  is  free  from  all  objections.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  a  better  and  purer  butter 
than  nine-tenths  of. the  dairy  product  that  is  marketed,  and  one  that  is  far  more 
easily  preserved.  There  are  a  large  number  who  imagine  oleomargarine  is  made 
from  any  old  scraps  of  grease  regardless  of  age  or  cleanliness.  The  reverse  is  the 
fact.  Good  oleo  can  only  be  had  by  employing  the  very  best  and  freshest  of  fat. 
This  artificial  butter  is  as  purely  wholesome  (and  perhaps  even  better  as  food)  as  the 
best  dairy  or  creamery  product. 

Jollies  and  Winkler,  the  official  chemists  of  the  Austrian  Govern- 
ment, after  thorough  investigation  of  butterine,  reported: 

The  only  germs  found  in  "oleo"  are  those  common  to  air  and  water.  Although 
carefully  searched  for,  tubercular  bacilli  and  other  obnoxious  bacilli  were  conspicu- 
ous by  their  absence. 

Mr.  ALDREDGKE.  Now,  when  these  inferior  butter  makers  strike  the 
chemist  they  always  dodge.  1  have  seen  a  mule  that  was  beaten  over 
the  head  by  a  negro  until  every  time  a  man  raised  his  hand  50  yards 
away  from  him  he  would  commence  to  dodge  him.  And  you  can't  get 
one  of  them  to  talk  about  a  chemist.  Whenever  he  gets  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  a  chemist  he  says,  "  Well,  he  don't  know."  Why,  that  is 
what  they  are  here  for.  The  chemist  is  the  highest  product  of  science; 
and  he  is  here  to  tell  us  what  is  in  every  article  about  which  we  want 
to  ask  him.  And  yet  they  say,  '•  He  don't  know."  They  dodge  him 
every  time. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  will  elevate  this  butter  crowd.  I  will  agree  that 
their  product  is  perfectly  pure.  That  is  agreeing  to  a  great  deal.  I 
was  raised  on  a  farm,  and  my  business  when  I  was  a  boy  was  to  mind 
the  calf  off  and  hold  him  off  while  the  cow  was  being  milked.  It  is  done 
in  a  little  pen;  and  the  cows  drop  a  great  deal  of  manure.  That  is  all 
ground  up.  You  can  not  milk  them  in  a  big  pen.  That  manure  is  all 
ground  up  and  in  the  air,  and  they  are  walking  to  and  fro;  and  I  can 
show  you  certificates  here  from  a  dairyman  in  Iowa  where  he  found  that 
very  stuff  in  his  milk,  and  complained  about  it.  But  we  will  grant  that 
they  are  making  a  pure  product.  Then  what?  Here  is  a  contest 
between  two  perfectly  pure,  wholesome  articles  of  food.  And  one  party 
says,  "  Stop  the  manufacture  of  the  other ! " 

Now,  why  should  the  Government  be  called  upon  to  interfere  in  such 
a  contest  as  that?  Why  should  the  Government  be  called  upon  to  take 
one  man's  business  in  its  hand,  and  lift  it  up  and  put  its  hand  upon  the 
other  and  sink  it?  Gentlemen,  government  among  men  never  was 
organized  or  contemplated  for  such  a  purpose  as  that — never. 

There  is  lodged  in  every  man's  breast  an  innate  love  of  justice.  You 
can  take  the  vilest  criminal,  and  eliminate  his  self-interest,  and  it  blazes 
in  his  bosom.  No  man  can  eradicate  the  love  of  justice.  Robert  E. 
Lee  said:  "  The  biggest  word  in  the  English  language  is  duty."  Well, 
he  was  close  to  the  mark,  but  there  is  one  bigger  word  than  that,  and 
that  is  justice  and  fair  dealing  among  men. 

Now,  sir,  if  I  were  to  see  a  dog  fight  out  in  the  street,  and  if  I  were  to 
see  one  man  go  and  take  hold  of  the  leg  of  one  of  those  dogs  and  hold  him 
while  the  other  one  chewed  him  up,  I  would  have  a  contempt  for  that 
man  as  long  as  I  lived.  Suppose  there  was  a  boat  race  between  Yale 
and  Harvard  on  the  Hudson  Kiver,  and  they  had  been  practicing  for 
mouths.  Suppose  the  river  was  lined  with  a  vast  multitude  to  see  a 
fair  contest,  and  just  before  they  started  here  would  arrive  a  brass- 
buttoned  officer,  sent  by  Congress  to  tie  a  log  to  Yale's  boat.  Every 
man,  woman,  and  child  on  the  bank  of  that  river  would  curse  this 

(•113) 


696  OLEOMAEGARINE. 

Government  with  curses  loud  and  deep  for  such  an  act  of  infamy  and 
injustice. 

Yet,  gentlemen,  that  is  precisely  what  you  are  asked  to  do  by  the 
curled  darlings  of  the  dairy.  They  will  admit  to  you,  and  they  have 
done  it  before  your  committee,  that  this  product  of  ours  is  pure,  it  is 
healthful,  it  is  nutritious;  and  yet  they  say,  "Because  it  competes  with 
us,  kill  it!" 

Now,  I  know  that  there  are  a  lot  of  Congressmen  going  to  vote  for 
just  such  unjust  and  outrageous  legislation  as  that.  They  have  got  to 
do  it.  They  live  in  a  dairy  district.  They  have  got  to  put  their  con- 
science deep  down  in  the  seat  of  their  pants,  and  sit  on  it  while  they 
vote,  too.  It  is  vote  that  way  or  lose  their  place.  Well,  maybe  I 
would  do  the  same  thing;  I  don't  know.  I  hope  to  God  I  never  will  be 
tempted  that  way. 

Now,  these  dairymen  are  wealthy.  They  tell  you  how  much  they 
control.  They  appropriated  $14,000  lately  for  this  campaign;  and 
every  little  dairyman  that  milks  a  cow  in  the  United  States  has  run 
around  and  gotten  all  his  neighbors  to  sign  a  petition;  and  yet,  to  day 
there  are  not  20  per  cent  of  them  who  can  remember  ever  signing  a 
petition,  or  who  know  what  was  in  it  when  they  did  sign  it,  and  yet 
they  have  flooded  your  committee  with  these  petitions. 

Now,  gentlemen,  is  there  any  reason  why  this  unjust  legislation 
should  be  accomplished?  Why,  butter  is  higher  to-day  than  it  ever 
was.  It  is  higher  than  it  was  forty,  twenty,  or  ten  years  ago;  and  they 
can  not  supply  the  demand.  I  see  that  New  York  is  short  of  butter 
all  the  time.  They  want  a  monopoly,  so  that  they  can  put  their  prices 
out  of  sight;  and  when  they  do,  they  want  the  people  that  are  not  able 
to  pay  for  it  to  be  denied  this  wholesome  article  of  food.  These  dairy- 
men are  already  immunes  from  smallpox,  and  they  ask  of  the  Govern- 
ment to  give  them  immunity  against  competition.  That  is  their  posi- 
tion. Now,  who  are  on  the  other  side?  Why,  the  dairyman  himself 
is  halfway  on  the  other  side,  because  the  value  of  every  bull  calf  born 
on  his  farm  is  increased  by  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine.  He 
does  not  know  it,  but  he  is.  In  the  first  place,  these  cotton  farmers 
that  I  have  been  telling  you  about  are  on  the  other  side.  The  oil  mills, 
the  recent  development  all  over  the  South,  are  on  the  other  side.  The 
butterine  makers  are  on  the  other  side.  The  manufacturing  establish- 
ments all  over  the  North,  that  make  the  machinery  for  the  oil  mills,  are 
on  the  other  side.  The  mill  in  which  I  am  interested  bought  its  machin- 
ery in  Ohio,  bought  part  of  its  apparatus  in  Chicago,  bought  another 
part  in  Massachusetts,  and  bought  something  from  almost  every  por- 
tion of  the  North.  Those  people,  those  manufacturers,  are  on  the  other 
side.  The  cattlemen  are  on  the  other  side.  I  do  not  know  about  it 
myself,  as  1  am  not  a  cattleman.  But  the  southwest  cattle  convention 
that  met  at  Fort  Worth  declared  that  the  manufacture  of  oleomar- 
garine added  about  $3  to  the  value  of  every  beef  steer  raised,  and 
they  protested,  in  the  strongest  terms,  against  this  legislation.  The 
hog  men  are  on  the  other  side,  because  butterine  or  oleomargarine  is 
made  from  the  very  purest,  best  fat  of  the  beef,  the  very  purest,  best 
fat  of  the  hog,  cotton  seed  oil,  cream  and  butter,  churned  together. 
And  the  laboring  men,  all  over  this  country,  are  on  the  other  side. 

Gentlemen,  the  first  thing  I  did  yesterday  morning  when  I  reached 
Washington  City  was  to  go  over  to  the  market.  I  found  two  stalls 
there,  butterine  stalls.  There  are  quite  a  number  of  butter  stalls,  but 
I  found  two  butterine  stalls.  One  of  them  had  in  great  gilt  letters 
over  if,  "Only  butterine  sold  here."  The  other  had  a  great  glass  sign 

(•114) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  697 

with  "Butterine"  on  it  that  could  be  read  almost  a  quarter  of  a  mile 
away.  I  interrogated  the  first  man.  I  said,  "  How  is  your  business'?'7 
He  said,  "It  is  good.  I  think  I  sell  more  than  any  of  these  butter 
fellows."  "Well,"  said  I,  "why  do  your  people  buy  butterine  instead 
of  butter?"  Said  he,  "I  will  tell  you.  You  see,  this  butterine  is  15 
cents  a  pound.  They  can't  buy  butter  as  good  as  this  for  less  than  30 
or  35  cents  a  pound."  He  said,  "Poor  people  buy  this;  it  suits  their 
taste,  and  it  suits  their  pocketbook." 

I  went  to  the  other  stall  and  asked  the  dealer,"  How  is  your  business ! " 
"Good."  Said  I,  "Who  buys  from  you?"  "Well,"  he  said,  "a  great 
many  poor  people;  but,"  he  said,  "don't  you  think  they  are  only  poor 
people."  He  said,  "A  great  many  people  who  are  amply  able  to  pay 
for  butter  patronize  me."  "Well,"  said  I,  "why  do  they  do  that?" 
"Well,"  he  said,  "  our  product  is  uniform  the  year  round,  and  you  can't 
get  that  in  butter.  Our  product  is  inspected  by  the  Government,  and 
guaranteed  as  to  its  purity;  and,"  he  said,  "  a  great  many  people  who 
want  a  good  article,  and  a  uniform  article,  all  the  year  round,  patron- 
ize me." 

Gentlemen,  all  the  butter  men  in  the  United  States  can  not  answer 
the  arguments  of  those  two  men. 

You  cut  off  the  butterine  industry  and  what  are  a  great  many  labor- 
ing men  who  work  for  $1  and  $1.50  a  day  and  have  a  big  family  going 
to  do?  It  seems  that  generally  the  less  able  a  man  is  to  take  care  of 
a  family  the  more  family  surrounds  him.  Now,  take  a  man  with  a  big 
family  of  children,  where  is  he  going  to  get  money  to  pay  30  or  35  cents 
a  pound  for  butter?  Yet  these  dairymen  ask  you  absolutely  to  pro- 
hibit it  from  his  table. 

Now,  they  come  before  you  and  they  say  that  thirty-two  States  have 
adopted  this  butterine  law,  and  that  it  has  not  had  any  effect.  They 
can  not  stop  it.  Why  is  that?  Can  Congress  do  any  more?  Why  is 
it  they  can  not  stop  it?  I  will  tell  you.  The  world  has  never  yet 
found  anything  that  it  wanted  that  it  did  not  get  in  some  way.  No 
man  can  throttle  a  world's  wants.  The  world  lias  tried  oleomargarine; 
it  has  found  out  that  it  is  nutritious;  it  is  pure;  it  is  just  what  they 
want;  and  all  the  legislation  on  earth  can  not  prevent  their  getting  it. 
You  might  as  well  stand  on  the  seashore  and  bid  the  incoming  waves 
recede. 

Why,  a  great  many  of  the  States  and  a  great  many  cities  have  tried 
prohibition,  but  the  world  likes  red  liquor,  and  the  result  is  that  prohi- 
bition has  been  a  failure  everywhere  it  has  been  tried.  Almost  all  the 
States  of  this  Union  have  legislated  against  the  social  evil,  but  the 
social  evil  has  its  attractions,  and  they  have  never  been  able  to  eradi- 
cate it.  They  have  succeeded  in  scattering  it,  and  that  is  precisely  all 
that  can  be  done. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Will  you  permit  me  a  question  right  there? 

Mr.  ALDREDGE.  Yes,  sir. 

representative  NEVILLE.  With  reference  to  the  social  evil,  they  do 
fix  it  so  that  a  man  who  does  not  want  it  need  not  take  it,  do  they  not? 

Mr.  ALDREDGE.  Yes,  sir;  I  reckon  they  do.  It  is  all  Greek  to  me. 
I  don't  know  anything  about  it.  I  will  get  to  that  directly,  though. 

Now,  as  Mr.  Oliver,  representing  the  North  Carolina  and  South  Car- 
olina oil  mills  said,  we  have  taught  the  people  how  to  make  one  of  the 
finest  foods  in  the  world,  and  if  you  cut  it  off  in  its  legitimate  tax-pay- 
ing shape,  why,  every  little  farmer  in  the  country  will  commence  mak- 
ing it.  And,  as  he  said,  you  will  have  oleomargarine  moonshiners 
galore.  You  won't  have  courts  enough  to  try  them;  you  haven't  got 


698  OLEOMARGARINE. 

jails  enough  to  hold  them.  It  will  be  like  the  Quaker's  prayer  when 
the  stars  fell.  He  had  not  been  very  devout,  and  he  fell  on  his  knees 
and  said:  "O,  Lord,  this  do  be  the  judgment  day,  and  Thou  knowest 
that  hell  won't  hold  half  of  us."  That  is  the  way  it  would  be. 
[Laughter.] 

Now,  they  say  that  this  butterine  is  a  fraud.  Gentlemen,  I  want  to 
draw  a  distinction  between  fraud  and  innocent  deception.  There  can 
be  no  fraud  without  injury.  If  a  man  comes  to  me  and  says,  "Let  me 
have  a  $5  silver  certificate,"  and  instead  of  that  I  give  him  a  $5  national- 
bank  note,  I  have  deceived  him,  but  I  have  not  defrauded  him.  Then, 
if  butteriue  is  as  pure  as  butter  (and  the  fact  is,  it  is  much  purer)  and 
a  man's  landlady  fools  him  with  it,  all  right;  she  has  not  hurt  him.  If 
a  man's  wife  fools  him,  all  right;  she  has  not  hurt  him.  And  she  would 
have  to  have  as  many  lives  as  a  cat  in  order  to  fool  him  in  this  innocent 
way  as  many  times  as  he  fools  her  in  one  other  way. 

Now.  who  is  making  this  cry  of  fraud?  Who  is  making  it?  Why, 
when  I  was  a  boy  I  heard  something  to  the  effect  that  a  man  living  in 
a  glass  house  should  not  hurl  brickbats.  For  eight  months  in  the  year 
every  butter  factory  in  the  United  States  puts  this  coloring  matter  in. 
Many  of  them  put  it  in  the  whole  year  round.  You  can't  have  yellow 
butter  unless  you  have  rich,  green  grasses.  I  know  about  that;  I  have 
churned  it.  That  used  to  be  my  business,  too,  when  I  was  a  boy.  I 
have  churned  it,  I  expect,  nearly  a  thousand  times.  You  can't  have 
yellow  butter  unless  you  have  rich  grasses,  clover  and  alfalfa  for  the 
cow  to  run  on.  Why,  there  are  hundreds  of  dairies  whose  cows  are 
right  in  the  cities,  and  never  see  a  blade  of  grass.  Those  men,  where 
they  are  making  genuine  butter,  color  it  twelve  months  in  the  year. 
And  any  farmer  colors  it  all  during  the  eight  months  when  the  grass  is 
not  green. 

Now,  their  proposition  is,  uLet  us  fool  the  people;  let  us  fool  them 
for  eight  months  in  the  year;  but,  for  the  Lord's  sake,  don't  let  these 
other  fellows  fool  them  at  all."  That  is  the  proposition.  It  is  a  pious 
fraud,  if  a  fraud  at  all,  all  around;  nobody  gets  hurt. 

Now,  if  the  Government  is  going  to  stop  deception,  the  Government 
is  going  to  have  its  hands  full.  In  the  first  place,  if  there  is  any  mem- 
ber of  Congress  who  dyes  his  whiskers  or  his  hair,  he  is  a  fraud,  and 
ought  to  be  taken  out  and  clipped.  [Laughter.]  Every  time  one  of 
you  gentlemen  goes  to  a  bar,  they  hand  you  out  beautiful  red  whisky, 
and  every  bit  of  it  came  from  the  still  as  white  as  water.  Maybe 
you  don't  know  what  I  am  talking  about;  but  if  you  don't,  you  can 
send  out  and  have  the  information  gathered  for  your  benefit.  Why, 
we  smoked  Havana  cigars  here  the  whole  time,  for  three  years,  while 
the  Cuban  insurrection  and  war  was  going  on.  Why,  there  was  not  a 
blade  of  tobacco  raised  over  there,  and  yet  it  had  no  appreciable  effect 
upon  the  supply  of  Havana  tobaccos  and  cigars  in  the  United  States. 

Nearly  all  of  us  carry  alligator  grips.  There  they  are;  and  if  every 
alligator  that  was  ever  killed  was  a  mile  wide,  he  couldn't  furnish  the 
hide  for  those  grips. 

All  of  you  wear  kangaroo  shoes.  I  have  a  pair  at  home  myself;  and 
there  are  probably  a  dozen  poor  little  kangaroos  about  as  big  as  a  fice 
dog  killed  once  a  year,  and  yet  they  supply  shoes  for  the  whole  world. 

These  are  innocent  deceptions.  1  want  to  show  what  the  Govern- 
ment will  have  on  hand. 

We  all  eat  canned  goods.  Did  you  ever  sit  down  at  the  table  and 
have  the  good  lady  at  the  head  tell  you  "  These  are  canned  pears,"  or 
"These  are  canned  cherries"?  Never  once  in  the  world.  Why,  if  we 


OLEOMAEGAEHSTE.  699 

believe  that  the  cherries  come  right  off  of  the  tree  onto  the  table,  they 
taste  better  and  they  look  better  to  us.  We  get  our  imagination  mixed 
in  with  it.  That  is  all  right;  it  is  an  innocent  deception.  They  never 
say  anything  about  their  coining  out  of  a  can;  yet  they  are  just  about 
as  good  as  when  fresh.  1  have  eaten  gallons  of  sorghum  molasses,  and 
they  never  told  me  that  that  was  not  made  from  river  cane. 

We  will  have  to  regulate  the  ladies.  Why,  they  use  paint;  they  use 
powder.  One  of  them  steps  out  of  her  home  onto  the  street,  or  to  her 
parlor,  and  she  has  these  yellow  ribbons  on.  Tbat  is  the  thing  that 
makes  these  dairy  people  so  awful  hot.  And  her  shape  is  perfection. 
Visions  of  "the  Greek  Slave,"  and  all  the  lovely  statuary,  rise  before 
you  as  she  ambles  down  the  street.  She  is  perfection.  And  yet  they 
are  not  all  built  that  way.  Some  of  tbem  are  fearfully  and  wonderfully 
made.  [Laughter.]  Now,  the  Government  ought  to  take  a  hand  in 
that,  and  stop  that  kind  of  deception  which  they  practice  on  us  men. 

Why,  sir,  the  very  wearing  of  clothes  is  a  deception,  and  disguises  a 
man's  deformities.  Congress  must  step  in  and  make  every  fellow  go 
naked,  and  grow  hair  like  a  hog.  That's  the  way  to  be  natural. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  fact  is  that  if  the  Government  is  going  to  regu- 
late all  the  domestic  affairs,  and  poke  its  nose  into  butter  and  everything 
else,  then  the  Government  has  got  to  quit  everything  else.  She  gives 
up  the  Philippines  and  the  management  of  Cuba,  and  quits  making 
treaties  with  the  powers,  and  stays  at  home  and  attends  to  the  home 
duties.  Why,  sir,  a  lot  of  people  would  like  to  put  this  Government 
to  grinding  coffee  and  toting  out  slops.  That  is  their  idea  of  govern- 
ment. That  is  their  idea  of  what  government  is  for.  What  business 
has  the  Government  fooling  around  here  in  butter? 

Now,  I  grant  you  that  if  it  is  a  police  regulation,  and  we  were  making 
something  that  hurt  the  people,  the  Government  ought  to  step  forward. 
But  here  the  truth  is,  disguise  it  as  they  may,  that  they  do  not  claim 
our  article  is  not  just  as  pure  as  theirs.  The  question  is,  Shall  the 
Government  put  its  hand  on  one  man's  business  and  lift  it  up  and  sink 
the  other  down? 

Gentlemen,  the  Constitution  (I  will  not  read  the  different  sections; 
I  had  intended  to  do  it)  does  not  anywhere  say  in  positive  terms  that 
commerce  between  the  States  shall  be  free;  but,  sir,  there  are  a  number 
of  sections  there  that  go  to  show  that  that  is  the  very  spirit  of  the 
Constitution.  And,  gentlemen,  if  one  State  can  lay  an  embargo  against 
the  products  of  another  State,  why,  that  other  State  ought  to  be  turned 
loose  to  retaliate.  And  what  do  we  have?  Instead  of  a  great  nation, 
cemented  together  by  the  band  of  commerce,  interchanging  its  com- 
modities freely  one  with  another,  we  have  a  lot  of  little,  jealous,  petty 
republics,  worse  than  South  America. 

I  say  that  if  Maine  and  Pennsylvania  and  Illinois  and  other  States 
are  going  to  legislate  against  a  perfectly  pure,  healthy  Texas  product, 
then,  I  say,  turn  Texas  loose  and  let  us  retaliate.  And  whenever  we  do, 
I  am  going  to  the  legislature.  I  would  hate  to  be  caught  in  that  crowd, 
but  I  will  go;  and,  let  me  tell  you,  I'll  make  it  hot  for  every  State  that  has 
legislated  against  our  products.  I'll  make  it  a  penitentiary  offense  to 
sell  Maine's  fish  down  there.  I  will  make  it  a  penitentiary  offense  to 
sell  Illinois  buggies  and  Ohio  buggies  and  other  manufacturing  interests 
up  there.  If  a  man  wants  to  ship  a  lot  of  corn  down  there  to  us  cotton 
farmers,  and  a  carload  of  bacon,  why,  I  will  make  it  a  penitentiary  offense 
to  do  such  a  thing,  and  we  will  be  just  like  two  cats  strung  on  a  wire;  we 
will  all  be  wool  pulling. 

Now,  that  is  the  kind  of  a  government  they  want.  What  right  has 

(•117) 


700  OLEOMARGARINE. 

any  State  to  ostracize  and  taboo  our  products — if  they  are  healthy,  mark 
you,  all  the  time,  if  they  are  good,  if  they  are  pure?  They  talk  about 
police  regulations.  This  Grout  bill  says  that  in  the  exercise  of  police 
powers  each  State  shall  be  permitted  to  deal  with  this  thing  as  it  pleases. 
Each  State  shall  be  permitted  to  lay  an  embargo  on  our  products  when 
not  a  man  in  the  State  will  stand  up  and  tell  you  that  our  products  are 
not  pure,  healthy,  and  good  for  them.  Is  that  the  exercise  of  a  police 
power?  Gentlemen,  it  is  a  flaring  falsehood  on  its  face. 

Now,  this  [indicating  map]  represents  all  the  States  in  black  that 
have  passed  this  law;  and  it  is  very  appropriate.  It  is  a  shady,  dark 
business.  I  am  glad  they  put  it  that  way.  And  I  see  here  Alabama, 
Georgia,  and  South  Carolina.  God  knows  the  idea  of  a  Southern  State 
in  legislating  against  its  chief  product  at  the  behest  of  a  dairy  trust  a 
thousand  miles  away !  They  need  the  prayers  of  the  church.  The  fool 
killer  has  not  got  around  there  yet,  evidently. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  will  not  detain  you  much  longer.  I  am  about 
through.  These  men  that  are  asking  this  legislation  are  but  trying  to 
impede  the  wheels  of  progress.  That  is  all.  The  genius  of  this  age  is 
manifested  in  the  cheapening  of  all  articles  worn  or  eaten  or  used  by 
man.  More  has  been  accomplished  in  the  last  fifty  years  in  that  direc- 
tion than  has  been  accomplished  since  the  time  when  Adam  was  a  baby. 
It  is  the  law  of  nature,  gentlemen.  What  is  it?  The  survival  of  the 
fittest— development — evolution.  There  is  a  great  law  of  commerce. 
What  is  it?  The  survival  of  the  cheapest  and  the  best.  And  the  man 
or  set  of  men  who  gets  in  the  way  of  that  law  is  crushed,  inevitably.  He 
is  bound  to  be.  The  whole  is  greater  than  any  part  of  it.  The  welfare 
of  a  whole  people — what  is  cheapest  and  best  for  them — will  prevail. 
You  might  as  well  attempt  to  roll  the  sun  back  as  to  deny  the  people 
that  right.  They  will  have  it. 

Now,  if  the  people  prefer  this  article,  which  the  dairy  interest  is  fight- 
ing simply  because  their  business  is  exploited  by  this  manufactured 
article— because  it  is  cheaper  and  just  as  good  as  theirs — who  shall  say 
them  nay? 

Why,  gentlemen,  why  did  not  the  shoemakers,  the  men  that  sit  cross- 
legged  and  sew,  when  these  people  up  here  in  Boston  and  New  York 
and  all  over  the  country  began  to  make  shoes  by  machinery,  come  here 
and  ask  you  to  stop  it?  Yon  ought  to  have  done  it?  The  tailors  ought 
never  to  have  allowed  the  making  of  hand-me-down  clothes.  They  have 
just  as  much  argument  in  their  behalf  as  the  dairies. 

Now,  the  business  of  the  man  who  makes  tallow  candles  (and  I  used 
to  mold  them  myself  when  1  w  is  a  boy)  was  exploited  by  the  discovery 
of  petroleum.  Then,  petroleum  was  exploited  by  the  discovery  of  gas; 
and,  then,  gas  went  to  the  wall  when  electric  lights  flashed  out;  and 
yet,  in  each  of  these  stages,  the  Government  ought  to  have  enjoined 
the  proceeding  and  stopped  it.  We  can't  have  that  sort  of  develop- 
ment. And  when  the  fellow  that  swung  the  cradle  saw  the  McCor- 
mick  harvester,  that  went  across  the  field,  and  mowed  down  the  grain, 
and  tied  it  up,  and  then  threshed  it,  and  all  that — did  everything,  except 
eating  the  biscuit — he  ought  to  have  enjoined  McOormick. 

Gentlemen,  these  men  have  gotten  in  the  way  of  public  progress. 
They  say,  "  But  the  people  eat  it  as  butter,  and,  therefore,  it  is  a  fraud." 
"Well,"  I  say,  "the  people  eat  your  yellow  winter  stuff,  as  yellow  as 
summer  butter,  and  therefore  you  are  a  fraud."  But  he  answers  back, 
"Ours  is  butter,  and  that  is  just  as  good  and  just  as  rich  as  the  yellow 
butter  of  summer."  Well,  I  say  the  same.  You  can't  use  any  argument 
that  does  not  apply  to  us.  I  say  that  our  stuff  is  just  as  good,  just  as 


OLEOMARGARINE.  701 

nutritious,  just  as  health  giving  as  yours;  consequently  we  are  in  the 
same  boat. 

Why,  one  man  who  addressed  you  said  that  the  States  ought  to  be 
allowed  to  prohibit  this  thing,  just  like  they  did  whisky.  Now,  gentle- 
men, whisky  demoralizes  a  man;  it  breaks  up  and  ruins  his  family, 
degrades  them,  and  impoverishes  them.  Whisky  does  tbat.  But  a  man 
might  gourmandize  on  oleomargarine  for  forty  years,  and  he  would  be 
a  better  man  and  a  stronger  man  every  day.  The  argument  does  not 
hold.  I  thank  you  for  your  attention.  [Applause.] 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Dadie,  of  Chicago,  will  next  address 
the  committee. 

STATEMENT  OF  JOHN  DADIE,  ESQ.,  OF  CHICAGO,  ILL. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  MEMBERS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  :  My  ideas  on 
the  oleomargarine  question  I  have  gotten  up  in  manuscript  form,  and 
with  your  permission  I  would  like  to  read  them  to  you,  after  which  I 
will  be  glad  to  answer  questions  that  you  may  care  to  ask,  if  I  am  able 
to  do  so. 

I  have  been  actively  engaged  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine for  the  past  sixteen  years,  and  this  is  the  first  time  I  have 
ever  appeared  before  any  legislative  body  in  the  interest  of  the  business 
that  I  represent,  although  during  this  period  there  has  scarcely  been 
a  time  that  some  restrictive  or  prohibitive  legislation  has  not  been 
pending  of  a  State  or  national  character* 

It  is  unnecessary  to  call  the  attention  of  the  older  members  of  this 
committee  to  the  fact  that  the  Grout  bill  has  been  introduced  here 
many  times  before,  and  we  find  it  presented  again  for  your  consideration, 
but  dressed  in  somewhat  of  a  new  garb.  The  Grout  bill  of  to-day  differs 
from  the  Grout  bill  of  the  past.  The  present  measure  in  its  first  sec- 
tion embraces  everything  the  original  bill  contained,  but  anew  section 
has  been  added  thereto,  which  further  provides  for  an  additional  tax, 
the  object  of  which  is  to  throttle  and  strike  out  the  very  life  of  the 
industry,  so  that  the  jobbers  of  butter  may  have  no  competition  in  their 
field  of  commerce. 

The  history  of  oleomargarine,  since  its  introduction,  has  been  one  of 
continual  strife  for  its  existence.  In  its  earlier  days  it  was  the  object 
of  ridicule  in  comic  papers,  wherein  was  described  in  print  and  carica- 
ture methods  and  formulas  for  its  manufacture  that  originated  in  the 
lively  imagination  of  the  writer  or  the  artist.  They  were  all  ridiculous 
exaggerations,  yet  the  dairy  papers  of  the  country  would  at  once  pos- 
sess themselves  of  the  idea  and  publish  the  same  in  all  seriousness, 
warning  the  public  against  the  use  of  the  article  which  they  claimed 
could  only  result  in  harm  to  the  consumer,  even  when  used  in  the 
smallest  quantities.  These  warnings,  predictions,  and  misrepresenta- 
tions of  the  dairy  people  failed  in  their  object,  and  they  viewed  with 
alarm  the  growing  popularity  and  increasing  demand  for  oleomargarine 
as  an  article  of  food  and  commerce.  Belief  was  then  sought  from  the 
different  State  legislatures,  and  by  threatening  the  future  political  life 
of  the  legislator  who  failed  to  labor  in  the  interest  of  their  iniquitous 
measures,  several  were  enacted  into  laws.  A  number  of  them,  however, 
have  since  been  declared  unconstitutional  by  State  and  Federal  courts. 

In  1886  a  bill  was  framed  and  presented  to  Congress  placing  the  man- 
ufacture and  sale  of  oleomargarine  absolutely  under  the  control  and 
supervision  of  the  Government.  This  measure  placed  an  internal-rev- 
enue tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  on  goods  when  made.  It  further 


702  OLEOMARGARINE. 

provided  for  special  taxes  as  follows:  Six  hundred  dollars  poi  annum 
for  a  manufacturer,  $480  per  annum  for  a  wholesaler,  $48  per  annum  for 
a  retailer,  and  as  a  protection  to  prevent  fraud  in  sales,  the  manufac- 
turer is  required  to  keep  a  book,  in  which  entries  must  be  made  in  trip- 
licate of  daily  sales,  giving  name  and  address  in  full  of  each  purchaser 
and  number  of  packages  and  pounds  sold.  The  original  and  duplicate 
of  this  report  is  presented  monthly  to  the  collector  of  internal  revenue  in 
the  district  in  which  the  factory  is  located,  with  an  affidavit  certifying 
that  it  is  an  accurate  and  complete  record  of  all  business  done  during  the 
time  specified.  The  same  method  applies  to  sales  made  by  wholesalers. 
Special  tax  stamps  of  required  values  are  furnished  to  the  manufacturer 
by  the  collector  of  internal  revenue,  which  are  affixed  to  the  outside  of 
each  and  every  package,  and  thereon  canceled  as  the  law  directs.  There 
is  also  a  caution  notice  attached  to  each  package,  warning  the  public 
against  using  the  package  again  as  a  container  for  oleomargarine.  The 
law  also  provides  for  the  manner  in  which  a  retailer  shall  make  sales. 
That  the  goods  shall  be  sold  by  him  from  the  original  package,  in  quan- 
tities not  to  exceed  10  pounds,  and  when  so  sold  shall  be  packed  by 
him  in  new  wooden  or  paper  packages,  with  his  name  and  address,  the 
number  of  pounds  in  the  package,  and  the  word  oleomargarine  in  one- 
quarter  inch  letters,  plainly  stamped  thereon,  so  that  the  purchaser 
may  be  advised  of  the  contents  of  the  package.  Heavy  penalties  are 
fixed  for  failure  to  comply  with  any  of  these  provisions. 

The  Government  is  also  authorized  to  confiscate  any  oleomargarine 
that  in  its  judgment  is  impure,  unwholesome,  or  in  any  way  deleteri- 
ous to  health,  and  it  is  further  provided  that  the  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Revenue  is  authorized,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  to  make  all  needful  regulations  for  the  carrying  into 
effect  of  this  act.  This  bill  was  given  careful  consideration ;  was  finally 
amended  by  striking  out  the  10  cent  per  pound  tax  and  substituting  in 
lieu  thereof  a  tax  of  2  cents  per  pound,  after  which  it  became  a  law, 
and  the  lobby  that  was  instrumental  in  securing  its  passage  were  cor- 
respondingly jubilant.  The  prediction  was  freely  made  that  oleomar- 
garine had  received  its  quietus.  But  the  manufacturers,  recognizing 
the  merit  in  their  product,  accepted  the  new  condition  of  things  and 
inaugurated  a  campaign  of  education.  To  educate  the  public  as  to  the 
merits  and  use  of  an  article  is  not  an  easy  task.  This  is  particularly 
true  when  the  producers  and  agents  of  a  rival  product  resort  to  ques- 
tionable and  vicious  means  to  prevent  that  end.  To  educate  the  public 
to  the  use  of  oleomargarine  has  required  a  vast  amount  of  energy  and 
the  expenditure  of  large  sums  of  money  annually.  In  Chicago  alone, 
the  center  of  the  manufacturing  industry  in  this  line,  thousands  of  dollars 
is  spent  monthly  in  displaying  large  artistic  sign  posters  troin  20  to  60 
feet  long  and  10  to  20  feet  high,  extolling  the  merits  of  oleomargarine. 

Demonstrations  of  the  product  can  be  seen  in  the  largest  concerns  in 
every  market,  and  tons  of  it  are  given  p^ay  yearly  to  bring  about  a 
true  realization  of  its  merits,  and  how  well  it  has  succeeded  is  demon- 
strated in  the  increase  of  sales  since  1886.  The  first  fiscal  year  of 
operation  under  the  then  new  Federal  law,  the  total  sales  in  the 'United 
States  were  about  21,000,000  pounds,  while  this  year  the  aggregate 
output  will  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  100,000,000  pounds.  Could  any 
better  object  lesson  be  used  to  convince  you,  gentlemen,  of  the  merits 
of  oleomargarine,  when  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  every  new  convert  to 
the  ranks  as  a  dealer  in  it  immediately  becomes  the  target  for  persecu- 
tion at  the  hands  of  the  butter  trust  and  its  agents? 

One  of  the  old  charges  against  oleomargarine,  in  days  gone  by,  was 

(*120) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  703 

that  it  was  unwholesome,  and  consequently  its  manufacture  and  sale 
should  be  prohibited.  This  argument,  false  in  its  inception,  is  now 
considered  crude,  and  is  never  used  by  intelligent  detainers  of  the 
article.  Unfortunately,  however,  a  misguided  and  overzealous  orator 
is  occasionally  found  who,  in  his  anxiety  to  make  a  damaging  state- 
ment, will  so  far  forget  himself  as  to  reflect  upon  its  purity  and  whole- 
someness.  People  of  this  class  are  generally  opposed  to  advanced  ideas 
along  any  line,  and  continue  their  harangue  against  improvements  of 
all  kinds  until  they  are  caught  and  crushed  beneath  the  wheels  of 
progress,  and  their  funeral  is  usually  small. 

It  is  a  well  established  fact  that  the  methods  employed  in  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine  are  of  a  scientific  nature;  that  the  buildings 
and  appurtenances  are  of  modern  kind  and  latest  improvement,  insur- 
ing perfect  sanitation  and  ventilation,  as  well  as  absolute  cleanliness 
in  every  department.  Of  the  product  itself,  Jollies  and  Winckler, 
official  chemists  of  the  Austrian  Government,  after  a  searching  investi- 
gation, report  that  the  only  germs  ever  present  in  oleomargarine  are 
those  common  to  air  and  water.  Although  carefully  sought  for,  tuber- 
cular bacilli  and  other  obnoxious  bacilli  were  conspicuously  absent, 
and  to-day  there  is  no  recognized  scientific  authority  in  this  country 
or  any  other  that  does  not  indorse  oleomargarine  as  a  healthful  food 
product. 

We  have  heretofore  refrained  from  attacking  butter  and  the  methods 
of  its  manufacture,  but  Mr.  Edward  Chadwick,  manager  of  a  large  cream- 
ery at  Osgood,  Iowa,  in  a  letter  to  his  patrons,  which  was  published  in 
the  columns  of  the  Chicago  Dairy  Produce,  the  official  organ  of  the 
dairy  people,  says : 

A  good  deal  of  milk  is  brought  in  dirty,  because  not  strained  at  home,  and  no 
effort  made  to  keep  straws  or  tilth  out  of  it.  Some  of  the  cans  are  seldom  or  never 
properly  washed,  and  a  thick  coating  of  sticky  filth  may  be  scraped  off  them,  both 
inside  and  out.  I  can  strain  the  milk,  run  it  through  the  separator,  and  remove  a 
large  part  of  the  dirt,  but  no  butter  maker  on  earth  can  remove  the  tainted  and  filthy 
smell  that  milk  gets  from  staying  in  unclean  cans  in  bad-smelling  barns.  Some  of 
our  patrons  would  be  horrified  if  they  saw  the  dirt  and  filth  I  remove  from  my 
strainer  and  separator.  Does  anybody  think  that  a  bar  of  soap,  a  chunk  of  stable 
manure,  potatoes,  parsnips,  dish  rags,  or  hairpins  soaking  in  your  cans  overnight 
or  longer  will  improve  the  flavor  of  the  milk?  I  have  found  all  of  the  above  and 
more  in  the  strainer  of  the  weigh  can.  How  can  good  butter  be  made  from  such 
milk?  When  you  send  your  jar  to  the  creamery  for  butter  for  your  own  use,  what 
would  you  say  if  I  should  put  some  of  the  dirt  I  find  in  your  milk  on  top  of  the 
butter  in  your  jar?  You  would  return  that  butter  to  the  creamery,  and  be  mad 
besides.  If  the  butter  maker  would  return  your  dirty  milk  to  your  home  he  would 
be  doing  his  duty,  although  it  would  make  you  mad. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  recent  experiments  in  Chicago  have  dem- 
onstrated the  fact  that  a  large  percentage  of  the  dairy  herds  of  the 
Northwest  are  infected  with  tuberculosis.  The  deadly  character  of 
these  germs  is  only  too  well  known,  and  the  introduction  of  them  into 
the  human  system  through  the  use  of  contaminated  milk  or  butter  is 
conceded  by  every  recognized  authority. 

This,  gentlemen,  is  a  fair  comparison  of  the  advantages  and  disad- 
vantages under  which  the  two  products  are  manufactured.  Now  the 
contention  is  advanced  by  the  parties  interested  in  the  passage  of  this 
bill  that  they  do  not  want  oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of  natural 
butter,  and  I  want  to  say  most  emphatically  to  the  members  of  this 
committee  that  oleomargarine  is  not  colored  to  represent  natural  but- 
ter, and  further,  that,  practically  speaking,  no  such  thing  as  natural 
butter  is  offered  for  sale  in  any  market.  It  is  all  artificially  colored, 
and  further,  that  if  not  artificially  colored  six  months  out  of  the  year 
it  could  not  be  sold  other  than  at  a  sacrifice.  Why  are  these  people 


704  OLEOMARGARINE. 

not  honest  in  their  statements,  and  why  is  it  that  they  attempt  to  con 
ceal  the  fact  that  butter  is  artificially  colored  and  is  not  natural,  as  they 
falsely  represent  it  to  be1?  Why  should  the  producers  of  butter,  who 
are  the  framers  of  this  bill,  attempt  to  secure  to  themselves  the  exclu- 
sive use  of  color  when  the  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  is  responsible 
for  its  introduction  as  an  article  of  commerce?  Their  answer  is :  To  pre- 
vent oleomargarine  being  sold  as  butter.  Well,  then,  I  say :  Let  the  pro- 
ducers of  butter  discontinue  the  use  of  artificial  color  and  sell  their  butter 
in  its  natural  state  and  no  one  will  be  deceived  in  purchasing  oleomar- 
garine. Is  it  not  as  fair  a  proposition  to  say  that  butter  should  be  sold 
free  from  color  as  to  deny  its  use  in  a  rival  product  ?  Is  this  question 
not  pertinent  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  article  of  color  is  the 
property  of  the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  by  right  of  priority  and 
constant  use? 

With  the  introduction  of  oleomargarine,  the  very  nature  of  the  article 
made  it  necessary  to  introduce  a  substance  that  would  make  it  pleas- 
ing to  the  eye,  and  the  result  was  the  use  of  a  color.  The  producers  of 
butter  were  quick  to  see  the  advantages  derived  from  the  use  of  this 
color,  and  it  is  now  used  in  common  by  oleomargarine  and  butter 
makers  alike.  From  this  it  would  appear  that  if  any  rights  are  to  be 
protected  by  legislative  enactment,  in  so  far  as  color  is  concerned,  the 
makers  of  oleomargarine  are  entitled  to  such  protection,  and  we 
emphatically  protest  against  the  passage  of  any  law  that  gives  to  the 
dairy  interest  exclusive  rights  on  color  and  denies  that  right  to  our- 
selves. 

It  has  been  stated  to  your  committee,  by  speakers  on  the  other  side 
of  this  question,  that  they  represented  the  great  dairy  interests  of  the 
country  as  well  as  the  consumers  of  butter,  but,  gentlemen,  no  evidence 
has  been  submitted  here  in  support  of  this  remarkable  statement,  and 
I  doubt  if  the  speaker  had  as  many  proxies  as  he  desired  to  lead  you 
to  believe  he  had. 

I  also  join  issue  with  the  statement  that  large  quantities  of  oleomar- 
garine are  sold  as  butter.  The  records  .of  the  Internal  Revenue  Office 
show  that  out  of  the  80,000,000  pounds  marketed  in  the  United  States 
last  year  only  1  per  cent  of  it  was  sold  in  violation  of  law. 

A  significant  fact  that  speaks  volumes  for  the  makers  of  oleomar- 
garine, and  the  honest  and  conscientious  manner  in  which  it  is  sold,  is 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that  no  consumer  has  ever  prosecuted  a  dealer 
for  violating  a  State  or  Federal  law,  or  for  selling  him  oleomargarine 
when  butter  was  called  for,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  last  year  the 
agents  of  the  butter  trust  in  Chicago  offered  through  the  daily  press  a 
tempting  standing  reward  for  any  information  against  dealers  who  sold 
oleomargarine  for  butter.  They  also  tendered  the  services  of  their 
chemists  to  anyone  for  the  purpose  of  analyzing  samples  of  any  butter 
bought  by  them  that  was  suspected  of  being  oleomargarine,  and  in  the 
event  of  the  discovery  that  fraud  or  deception  was  practiced  by  the 
dealer  in  making  the  sale  they  would  assume  the  prosecution  of  the 
case  and  defray  all  expenses  incident  thereto.  Even  this  method  failed 
to  produce  the  evidence  they  were  so  anxious  to  secure,  and  not  a  single 
violation  was  reported  to  them.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  comparative 
price  at  which  oleomargarine  and  butter  are  sold  by  the  retailer  precludes 
the  possibility  of  deceiving  the  customer  as  to  the  identity  of  oleomar- 
garine, the  retail  price  of  which  varies  during  the  year  from  12  cents  to 
20  cents  per  pound. 

In  reply  to  the  contention  of  Mr.  Charles  Y.  Knight,  who  submits  in 
his  brief  for  your  consideration  a  copy  in  part  of  some  of  the  corre- 

(*122) 


OLEOMAEGAEIWE.  705 

spondence  of  the  William  J.  Moxley  Corporation,  that  was  sent  to  its 
customers  at  various  times,  touching  on  the  color  question  and  the 
liability  of  prosecutions  that  would  naturally  follow  if  the  letters  of  the 
Illinois  Dairy  Union  were  to  be  taken  seriously. 

Now,  as  to  color;  it  is  a  well  known  fact  that  large  dealers  in  butter 
or  oleomargarine  will  display  and  sell  goods  of  different  colors,  and 
they  iind  it  necessary  to  do  so  in  order  to  suit  the  requirements  of  their 
different  customers.  Then,  too,  some  particular  district  will  use  an 
article  that  could  not  be  sold  in  another  market  by  reason  of  its  being 
too  high  or  too  light  in  color  to  properly  appeal  to  the  consumer's  taste. 
For  example,  the  markets  of  the  South,  notably  in  St.  Louis  and  New 
Orleans,  order  what  is  known  to  the  trade  as  an  orange  or  brick  color, 
and  it  is  popular  with  certain  people  in  those  districts,  while  in  other 
sections  of  the  country  it  could  not  be  sold  at  all,  as  a  different  shade 
of  color  is  demanded  and  the  concern  who  issued  the  color  card  referred 
to,  recognizing  the  importance  of  every  detail  of  its  business,  did  so 
for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  confusion,  by  supplying  its  customers  with 
goods  that  would  suit  in  color  the  requirements  of  their  trade.  There 
is  no  deception  practiced  or  intended,  nor  could  there  be,  as  the  internal- 
revenue  law  and  regulations  apply  to  all  our  product,  regardless  of  the 
amount  of  color  used. 

In  July,  1899,  an  attorney  in  Chicago,  Hugh  Y.  Murray,  claiming  to 
represent  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union,  an  organization  that  had  no  legal 
existence,  as  it  had  never  applied  for  or  been  granted  a  charter  to  oper- 
ate under,  but  was  composed  of  a  few  jobbers  in  butter  in  South  Water 
street,  issued  a  letter  over  this  assumed  title,  in  which  he  said  that  the 
Illinois  Dairy  Union  had  retained  him  to  prosecute  dealers  who  vio- 
lated the  State  laws  in  selling  oleomargarine,  when  he  well  knew  that 
the  State  law  had  been  declared  unconstitutional  in  every  court  in 
which  a  case  had  been  brought  in  Illinois.  It  was  in  reply  to  this  let- 
ter, and  a  similar  one  issued  by  Mr.  Knight,  who  claimed  to  be  the  sec- 
retary of  the  same  organization,  that  we  agreed  through  our  circular 
letter  to  defend  our  customers  against  prosecutions  brought  by  these 
people  under  the  name  of  this  assumed  organization,  and  in  doing  so 
it  was  not  our  purpose  to  defend  violations  of  a  law  or  to  encourage  any 
dealer  to  commit  violations  thereof,  but  we  simply  endeavored  to  pro- 
tect our  business  against  a  law  that  had  already  been  declared  uncon- 
stitutional, and  none  but  legitimate  methods  were  employed  in  defense 
of  our  customers;  and  I  desire  to  be  fully  understood  when  I  repeat 
that  it  is  our  purpose  to  continue  the  defense  of  cases  brought  against 
our  customers  by  irresponsible  organizations  and  agents  oi  renovated 
butter  manufacturers  until  the  Supreme  Court  passes  upon  the  consti- 
tutionality of  the  laws  in  question,  and  we  will  then  abide  by  their 
decision. 

A  vast  amount  of  importance  seems  to  attach  itself  to  the  correspond- 
ence received  by  members  of  Congress  from  country  districts  urging  the 
passage  of  this  bill  as  a  protection  to  the  dairy  interests.  It  may  be  of 
interest  to  you  gentlemen  to  know  through  what  channels  this  corre- 
spondence passes  before  reaching  members  in  Washington.  These 
appeals  for  protection  are  compiled  and  printed  by  one  man  in  South 
Water  street,  in  Chicago,  and  mailed  by  him  broadcast  to  the  rural 
districts  throughout  the  country,  with  a  personal  letter  asking  the  party 
addressed  to  sign  and  direct  the  letter  furnished  him  to  his  Representa- 
tive in  Congress,  and  as  a  reward  for  his  trouble  extend  to  him  the  hope 
of  a  permanent  increase  in  the  price  of  his  butter  if  they  are  successful 
in  destroying  the  oleomargarine  industry.  Would  it  not  be  as  well  to 

"  S.  Rep.  2043 45  (*123) 


706  OLEOMARGARINE. 

minimize  the  labor  and  expense,  and  at  the  same  time  insure  the  earlier 
receipt  of  these  letters  by  the  parties  for  whom  they  are  intended,  it  they 
were  mailed  direct  from  Chicago,  and  without  any  interference  on  the 
part  of  the  farmer  or  dairyman  who  simply  affixes  his  signature? 

The  people  who  are  opposed  to  this  measure  include  all  classes  of  citi- 
zens, from  the  man  who  represents  vast  and  diversified  business  inter- 
ests to  the  laborer,  who  is  the  consumer,  and  who  demands  it  as  his 
right  that  he  be  permitted  to  purchase  his  oleomargarine  of  a  sightly 
color  without  additional  Congressional  restrictions,  and  at  minimum 
cost.  They  have  sent  their  solemn  protest  to  you  against  this  pernicious 
piece  of  class  legislation.  They  are  the  purchasers  and  the  consumers 
of  this  article,  and  their  demands  and  their  rights  in  this  matter  should 
certainly  be  respected.  The  toiler  objects  to  drawing  the  line  of  demarca- 
tion between  brawn  and  wealth  in  a  manner  to  give  ocular  demonstra- 
tion of  his  poverty  by  compelling  him  to  purchase  his  substitute  for 
butter  white,  or  do  without  it.  The  great  central  body  at  Chicago  of 
the  Federation  of  Labor  have  placed  their  stamp  of  disapproval  on  this 
bill,  and  other  organizations  throughout  the  country  have  followed  their 
example,  or  are  preparing  to  do  so,  and  a  statement  to  the  contrary  in 
a  brief  submitted  for  your  perusal  is  probably  as  truthful  as  the  other 
statements  therein  contained.  The  same  party  makes  a  vicious,  base- 
less, and  unwarranted  attack  on  the  Government  officials  under  whose 
jurisdiction  these  goods  are  made  and  sold.  These  gentlemen  need  no 
defense  before  this  committee,  but  in  all  fairness  I  am  impelled  to  say 
that  I  never  met  one  who  was  not  active  and  conscientious  in  the  dis- 
charge of  his  duty,  and  the  statement  reflecting  on  the  integrity  of  these 
officials  is  cowardly,  false,  and  unjust. 

I  am  fully  convinced  if  this  question  was  honestly  explained  to,  and 
thoroughly  understood  by,  the  farmers  of  this  country,  that  they  would 
join  with  the  others  and  ourselves  in  protesting  against  the  passage  ot 
this  bill.  There  is  not  a  single  ingredient  that  enters  into  the  compo- 
sition of  oleomargarine  that  is  not  the  product  of  the  farm,  and  whose 
market  value  is  not  increased  by  its  introduction  as  a  commercial  prod- 
uct through  this  channel. 

Gentlemen,  as  an  American  citizen,  I  can  not  allow  myself  to  believe 
that  Congress  will  permit  itself  to  be  used  as  a  bumper  between  rival 
industries.  Congress  was  never  intended  to  exercise  its  legislative 
powers  in  such  a  manner  as  to  confer  rights  upon  one  industry  that 
would  cause  the  total  destruction  of  a  rival  business,  and  this  is  what 
the  framers  of  the  Grout  bill  are  asking  you  to  do. 

Gentlemen,  1  solemnly  protest  against  unwise  and  vicious  legislation 
of  this  kind,  and  I  appeal  to  your  business  judgment  when  you  deliber- 
ate on  this  question  among  yourselves.  I  protest  against  the  passage 
of  the  Grout  bill;  it  is  an  invasion  of  our  rights;  it  is  practically  a  con- 
fiscation of  our  property  interests,  an  injustice  to  the  producer  and 
consumer  alike. 

Now,  in  addition  to  this,  gentlemen,  I  have  brought  down  some  sam- 
ples of  oleomargarine  in  original  packages  that  are  put  up  as  the  pres- 
ent law  directs,  and  with  your  permission,  I  would  like  to  show  you 
how  it  is  done. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Will  you  answer  a  question  or  two  before 
you  do  that? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  When  you  state  that  only  1  per  cent  of  the 
amount  that  is  sold  in  the  United  States  was  sold  fraudulently  or  for 
butter  instead  of  butterine,  do  you  mean  that  that  amount  was  sold  by 


OLEOMARGARINE.  707 

the  manufacturers,  or  do  you  mean  that  that!  percent  is  the  total 
amount  which  has  ever  been  sold  by  the  retailers? 

Mr.  DADIE.  That  is  the  total  amount. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  All  that  1ms  been  sold  by  the  retailers, 
with  the  manufacturers'  sales,  amounted  to  only  1  per  cent  of  the 
total  amount  sold  ? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  in  Nebraska  we  have  a  law  which 
absolutely  prohibits  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  the  color  of  butter,  or 
colored  as  butter.  While  last  year,  with  1,058,910  population 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Neville,  1  would  suggest  that  we  have  quite  a 
number  of  witnesses  here,  and  I  think  you  ought  to  confine  your 
thoughts  to  questions. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  That  is  my  intention. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  take  up  the  balance  of  the  time  of  the 
committee  with  two  or  three  questions  in  that  way. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  My  intention  is  simply  to  ask  questions; 
that  is  all.  Now,  in  Nebraska  there  was  sold  1,024,985  pounds,  by  73 
dealers,  colored  as  butter;  and  I  find  that  in  all  the  States  together 
which  sold  butter  wrhere  there  was  an  anticolor  law,  there  was  more 
butterine  sold,  or  a  total  of  62,825,582  pounds,  as  against  16,860,142 
pounds  in  the  States  where  there  were  no  such  laws. 

Mr.  DADIE.  I  have  no  doubt  but  what  those  things  that  you  have 
mentioned  were  sold  as  oleomargarine,  and  not  as  butter. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  What  do  you  say  as  to  the  people  who 
enter  the  hotels  and  are  getting  butterine  or  oleomargarine  every  day? 
Do  they  believe  that  is  butteriue  or  do  they  think  it  is  butter? 

Mr.  DADIE.  My  experience  has  been  that  in  a  hotel,  now,  people 
imagine  they  are  getting  oleomargarine  all  the  time. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  You  think  that  is  what  they  think  they 
are  getting.  Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  another  question  or  two. 
You  state  that  you  are  the  originators  of  the  process  of  coloring  matter 
in  oleomargarine,  and  that  you  used  it  prior  to  any  color  having  been 
used  in  butter.  Do  you  mean  to  assert  that  as  a  fact? 

Mr.  DADIE.  I  am  talking  about  a  commercial  product.  Everybody 
knows  that  on  a  farm,  before  oleomargarine  was  ever  invented,  the 
people  used  to  grate  carrots  and  use  other  things  to  color  their  butter. 
But  it  is  a  fact  that  butter  has  not  been  colored  to  any  extent  until 
after  oleomargarine  was  manufactured  and  colored,  and  that  the  intro- 
duction of  color  is  the  result  of  the  introduction  of  oleomargarine  as  an 
article  of  commerce. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Is  it  not  true  that  oleomargarine  was  dis- 
covered as  a  product  and  first  manufactured  at  the  time  of  the  Franco- 
Prussian  war  as  a  necessity  in  France? 

Mr.  DADIE.  I  believe  that  is  true. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  do  you  pretend  to  assert  that  butter 
was  not  colored  in  creameries  in  the  United  States  prior  to  that  time? 

Mr.  DADIE.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  color  being  used  prior  to 
that  time.  As  a  matter  of  fact  creameries  are  an  invention  of  about 
the  same  date. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Well,  I  do  not  think  so.  I  think  I  know 
creameries  that  existed  before  that  time.  You  may  assert  that  that  is 
not  true;  but  that  is  merely  a  difference  of  memory,  perhaps. 

Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  this  question.  You  state  (hat  butter  is  col- 
ored in  the  winter  time  in  order  to  make  it  look  like  June  butter,  or 
butter  that  was  made  from  cattle  fed  upon  green  grass.  I  want  to  ask 

(*125) 


708  OLEOMARGARINE. 

you  if  the  coloring  that  is  added  to  the  butter  adds  anything  to  its 
nutritious  quality  as  a  food  product? 

Mr.  DAD  IE.  It  simply  adds  to  its  appearance,  I  presume. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  It  simply  adds  to  its  appearance.  Now,  I 
desire  to  ask  you  if  that  is  true  with  reference  to  the  color  used  in 
oleomargarine.  Does  that  color  add  to  its  nutritious  quality? 

Mr.  DADIE.  The  same  rule  would  apply  there.  It  is  simply 
added 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  It  does  not  add  anything,  then,  to  its 
nutritious  quality,  but  simply  adds  to  its  appearance? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Exactly. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now,  you  understand  that  if  this  bill 
becomes  a  law  it  will  permit  you  to  manufacture  oleomargarine  without 
coloring  matter  in  it;  and  it  would  be  just  as  nutritious  without  it, 
would  it  not? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Yes;  I  understand  that;  but  I  also  understand 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now,  would  not  that  be  manufactured  and 
sold  cheaper  to  the  laboring  people  than  it  is  sold  when  it  is  colored  so 
as  to  appear  to  be  butter  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  Mr.  Neville,  he  undertook  to  answer  one 
question,  and  I  think  it  is  only  fair  that  one  question  be  asked  and 
answered  at  a  time. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  I  did  not  intend  to  interrupt  him. 
.  The  CHAIRMAN.  I  suggest  that  the  gentleman  be  permitted  to  an- 
swer your  first  question  before  you  ask  him  another. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Well,  let  the  stenographer  read  that  ques- 
tion to  him. 

The  stenographer  thereupon  read  the  following  question  and  answer: 

Now,  you  understand  that  if  this  bill  becomes  a  law  it  will  permit  you  to  manu- 
facture oleomargarine  without  coloring  matter  in  it;  and  it  would  be  just  as  nutri- 
tious without  it,  would  it  not! 

Mr.  DADIE  :  Yes ;  I  understand  that,  but  I  also  understand 

The  WITNESS  (continuing).  But  it  is  also  a  fact  that  uncolored  but- 
terine could  not  be  sold  any  more  than  uncolored  butter  could,  and  that 
butterine  is  colored  for  the  same  purpose  that  you  people  color  butter — 
to  make  it  more  attractive  to  the  eye,  and  consequently  more  palatable. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  You  say  "you  people."  I  am  not  a  dairy- 
man by  any  means.  I  am  not  engaged  in  the  business. 

Mr.  DADIE.  I  am  talking  abort  the  dairy  people. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now  as  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  the  coloring 
simply  adds  to  the  appearance,  you  state;  and  you  say  you  could  not 
sell  it  if  it  was  left  uncolored? 

Mr.  DADIE.  It  would  be  practically  prohibition. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  a  letter 
written  by  your  firm.  You  represent  W.  J.  Moxley,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  This  is  a  notice  to  the  trade,  dated  April 
5,  18(J9,  from  your  firm.  In  that  letter  you  say : 

In  nearly  every  section  of  the  country  there  is  a  difference  in  the  color  of  butter, 
and  even  in  certain  seasons  of  the  year  there  is  a  change,  as  you  will  have  noticed. 
In  winter  butter  is  of  a  lighter  color  than  in  summer;  in  many  sections  this  is  the 
result  of  the  difference  in  feed  or  pasture.  We  can  give  you  just  what  you  want  at 
all  seasons,  if  we  know  your  requirements. 

Now,  I  ask  if  that  was  intended  for  the  purpose  of  giving  notice  to 

yonr  trade  that  they  could  sell  your  article  as  butter  or  as  butterine? 

Mr.  DADIE.  No,  sir;  it  was  intended  for  just  exactly  what  it  said. 

(*126) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  709 

As  I  said  in  this  manuscript,  there  are  certain  sections  of  the  country 
that  require  certain  shades  of  color.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  meeting 
the  wants  of  those  people  in  those  parts  of  the  country  that  we  issued 
that  circular. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  you  say  as  an  example,  in  the  notice, 
"No.  1  has  no  coloring  matter."  Do  you  sell  any  of  that? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Occasionally. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  You  could  sell  it,  then,  if,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  is  just  as  nutritious  and  just  as  wholesome,  if  the  people  really 
wanted  butterine  or  oleomargarine,  could  you  not? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Occasionally  you  will  find  in  a  German  settlement  a 
party  who  will  order  a  50-pound  case  of  it. 

Representative  STOKES.  Let  me  ask  a  question  there. 

Mr.  DADIE.  Certainly. 

Representative  STOKES.  What  proportion  of  your  trade  or  of  your 
orders  would  probably  be  for  that  kind  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Why,  the  percentage  would  be  so  small  that  it  would 
be  hard  to  compute  it. 

Representative  ALLEN.  I  would  like  to  ask  if  you  know  Mr.  Cohen, 
the  revenue  man? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  ALLEN.  What  do  you  know  of  him  personally,  as  to 
his  character  or  standing  as  a  man? 

Mr.  DADIE.  He  is  a  man  of  high  standing  in  Chicago. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Has  there  ever  been  any  reflection  there 
against  his  honesty  and  integrity,  so  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Not  so  far  as  I  know  5  no,  sir.  I  never  heard  of  any 
such  thing. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Is  he  a  native  resident  of  Chicago? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Yes,  sir.     . 

Representative  ALLEN.  Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  further  if 
you  know  of  William  Y.  Broad  well? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Yes,  sir;  I  do. 

Representative  ALLEN.  There  have  been  exhibited  here  some  origi- 
nal packages  of  the  wrappings  of  oleomargarine,  and  the  stamp  has 
been  impressed  upon  the  corner  of  the  wrapper,  and  turned  down  in 
that  manner  [indicating],  so  as  not  to  be  seen  by  the  purchaser.  What 
do  you  know  about  that? 

Mr.  DADIE.  I  understand  that  charge  has  been  made  against  him; 
but  there  are  about  2,500  licensed  dealers  in  the  first  district  of  Illi- 
nois, and  it  appears  that  this  man  Broadwell  is  about  the  only  one 
against  whom  they  have  been  able  to  get  any  cases  of  that  kind. 

Representative  ALLEN.  You  say  he  is  one  out  of  about  2,500? 

Mr.  DADIE.  One  out  of  about  2,500. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Of  the  retail  dealers? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Retail  licensed  dealers  in  that  district. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Are  you  a  manufacturer  or  retail  dealer? 

Mr.  DADIE.  A  manufacturer. 

Representative  ALLEN.  You  are  a  manufacturer? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Allen.  Would  you  mind 
telling  this  committee  the  ingredients  and  quantity  of  each  ingredient 
in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  DADIE.  That  question  I  would  rather  not  answer  in  the  way  it  is 
put.  The  quantities  of  the  different  ingredients  are  one  of  the  secrets 
of  the  trade;  but  I  will  say  that  they  vary  with  the  grades  made. 

(*127) 


710  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  you,  as  the 
dealer  and  the  manufacturer  and  the  seller  of  this  product  for  the  con- 
sumption of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  want  them  to  take  your 
word  absolutely  for  it  that  no  ingredient  is  put  into  the  manufacture  of 
the  article  which  would  injure  their  stomachs? 

Mr.  DADIE.  No,  sir;  that  is  not  right.  The  present  law  regulates 
that.  The  ingredients  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  are 
reported  to  the  Internal  Revenue  department,  and  when  there  is  any- 
thing used  that  in  their  judgment  is  deleterious  to  the  public  health, 
they  immediately  can  confiscate  these  goods.  The  chemist  connected 
with  the  department  is  the  party  who  is  supposed  to  look  after  that 
matter,  and  his  judgment  in  things  of  that  kind  is  final. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  do  you  mean  to  be  understood  that 
your  firm,  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  manufactures  it  differ- 
ently and  from  different  ingredients  from  what  other  manufacturers  in 
this  country  and  in  other  countries  do? 

Mr.  DADIE.  I  presume  that  we  use  the  same  ingredients.  We  pos- 
sibly differ  a  little  as  to  the  amounts  used,  and  we  may  differ  somewhat 
in  the  way  we  handle  them. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  object  to  telling  what  you  do 
use,  do  you? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Oh,  no,  no. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Suppose  you  tell  the  committee  what  the 
ingredients  are. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  It  is  just  the  proportions  which  you 
decline  to  tell  ? 

Mr.  DADIE.  That  is  all.  The  ingredients  used  are  oleo  oil,  what  is 
known  as  neutral  lard,  cotton  seed  oil,  milk  and  cream,  color,  and  salt. 
Occasionally  a  little  butter  is  used. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Dadie  has  some  samples  which  he  wishes  to 
show  us.  We  have  only  five  minutes  left,  and  I  suggest  that  he  bring 
them  over  and  show  them  to  the  committee. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  that  is  done  per- 
mit me  to  make  one  suggestion.  One  of  the  objects  ot  the  meeting  has 
failed  by  lack  of  time.  There  are  various  gentlemen  here  from  Arkan- 
sas, Tennessee,  and  Mississippi,  and  I  ask  that  the  committee  have 
another  meeting,  and  that  the  secretary  be  requested  to  give  notice  of 
it,  say,  to-morrow  morning  at  half  past  10,  to  hear  these  other  gentle- 
men. It  will  be  impossible  to  do  it  to-day. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Why  not  meet  to-night? 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Because  the  House  takes  up  this  Porto 
Rican  question  at  12  o'clock,  and  we  have  got  to  go  there. 

Representative  ALLEN.  I  mean  to-night. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  That  would  suit  me  if  it  would  other 
members  of  the  committee  as  well. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Well,  suppose  we  make  it  to  morrow  morn- 
ing, then? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  it  will  be  understood  that  we  will  meet  to- 
morrow morning  at  half  past  10  o'clock,  or  10  o'clock,  if  that  would  be 
more  acceptable  to  the  gentlemen.  It  would  certainly  give  more  time. 

Representative  WRIGHT.  I  would  like  to  ask  just  one  question. 
Referring  to  that  letter  from  the  head  of  an  industry  in  Iowa,  showing 
the  impurities  in  the  cream  and  milk,  I  want  to  ask  you  how  you  treat 
the  part  of  the  cream  and  milk  you  use  in  making  your  product  so  as 
to  take  out  those  impurities? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Well,  we  have  a  process  of  curing  and  ripening — 

(*128) 


OLEOMAEG  ABESTE.  711 

Representative  WRIGHT.  But  it  takes  them  all  out! 

Mr.  DADIE.  We  attempt  to  do  so. 

Representative  WRIGHT,  It  makes  it  absolutely  pure? 

Mr.  DADIE.  That  is  one  of  the  things  that  we  attempt  to  do,  and 
we  think  we  are  quite  successful  in  it,  as  the  chemists  are  unable  to 
find  any  of  those  germs  or  bacteria  that  are  found  in  butter. 

Now,  here  is  the  cover  of  what  is  called  a  solid-packed  tub,  on  which 
you  will  see  printed  "  Oleomargarine,  factory  No.  5,  First  district  of 
Illinois."  This  is  the  gross,  tare,  and  net  weight  of  the  package. 
Every  cover  on  an  original  package  of  oleomargarine  as  put  up  by  the 
manufacturer  has  that  same  brand  on  it.  The  tub  itself  then  carries 
the  internal-revenue  stamp,  which  is  nailed  on  with  five  tacks  and 
canceled  with  wavy  lines  as  you  see  here,  in  addition  to  which  we  put 
on  a  caution  notice,  warning  the  public  against  the  use  of  the  package 
again  as  a  container  for  oleo. 

A  MEMBER.  Can  the  retail  dealer  take  it  out  in  pound  packages? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Yes,  sir;  he  is  obliged  to  take  it  out  in  any  quantity 
that  the  buyer  may  wish.  The  retail  dealer  is  not  allowed  to  sell  the 
original  package. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  But  when  he  does  take  it  out  he  is  com- 
pelled by  the  law  to  put  it  either  in  a  wooden  or  paper  wrapper  con- 
taining the  words  "oleomargarine"  and  the  quantity. 

Representative  LAMB.  Yes,  and  then  he  sells  it  as  butter  and  as 
oleomargarine,  both.  He  sells  it  as  oleomargarine  to  one  customer, 
and  as  butter  to  another. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  There  are  men  who  violate  all  laws,  and 
that  is  a  violation  of  law,  if  it  is  done. 

Mr.  DADIE.  Here,  gentlemen,  is  what  is  known  as  a  case.  You  will 
find  that  is  marked  in  the  same  way.  Here  is  the  manner  in  which  the 
retailer  is  compelled  to  stamp  every  package  that  he  sells.  That  is 
one  of  the  regulations.  That  is  the  present  law.  You  will  notice  that 
there  is  a  blank*  space  left,  so  that  he  can  fill  in  the  number  of  pounds 
he  sells. 

Now,  there  [producing  another  sample]  is  a  print.  You  will  notice 
the  word  "  oleomargarine"  stamped  right  in  the  wrapper.  The  present 
regulation  compels  every  manufacturer  who  puts  a  printed  wrapper  on 
a  print  to  add  the  word  "oleomargarine"  to  the  other  matter  that  he 
may  put  on  it. 

A  MEMBER.  Is  that  your  first  quality  of  goods? 

Mr.  DADIE  :  No,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  Mr.  Dadie,  I  saw  a  little  pamphlet 
the  other  day — I  have  it  at  my  office — with  regard  to  a  package  some- 
thing similar  to  this,  with  a  brand  on  top  of  it,  "Best  Jersey  oleomar- 
garine." 

Mr.  DADIE.  Yes,  sir. 

representative  NEVILLE.  I  think  that  was  the  exact  wording. 
Now,  does  that  indicate  that  the  oleo  in  that  brand  of  oleomargarine 
comes  from  Jersey  cattle?  Is  that  the  idea? 

Mr.  DADIE  :  Oh,  I  could  not  say  as  to  that.  We  do  not  manufacture 
that  brand. 

Now,  here  is  a  sample  that  is  uncolored. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  That  is  not  colored  at  all? 

Mr.  DADIE.  No,  sir.  There  [producing  sample]  is  a  sample  of  pure 
butter,  gentlemen.  That  is  absolutely  pure,  and  without  color. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Who  made  this? 

Mr.  DADIE.  I  made  that  at  the  factory  in  Chicago.    Here  is  a  sam- 


712  OLEOMARGARINE. 

pie  of  uncolored  oleomargarine,  what  they  want  us  to  put  up.  Now, 
in  addition  to  that,  I  have  different  shades  of  color.  I  want  to  call 
your  attention  to  these  different  shades  of  color  that  are  required  by 
different  dealers.  And  I  want  to  call  your  attention  particularly  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  manufacturer  is  obliged  to  put  his  oleo  up. 

(After  informal  discussion  among  members  of  the  committee:) 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  state,  for  the  benefit  of  the  committee, 
where  these  differ? 

Mr.  DADIE.  As  I  said  in  the  paper  that  I  read,  there  are  certain 
customers  throughout  the  country  who  require  different  colors  of  butter. 
You  will  notice  that  these  different  shades  here  vary  from  absolutely 
no  color  to  one  that  is  very  high. 

Kepresentative  NEVILLE.  Mr.  Dadie,  T  would  like  to  ask  you  another 
question.  If,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  you  think  a  majority  of  the  people 
are  looking  for  butterine  when  they  go  into  the  hotels  and  restaurants, 
and  expect  to  be  served  with  butterine,  and  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  it 
is  an  article  that  does  sell  on  its  own  merits,  and  not  by  reason  of  its 
imitation  of  another  product,  to  wit,  butter,  why  in  your  letter  did  you 
use  the  word  "butter"  instead  of  "butterine"  or  " oleomargarine'7 
when  asking  with  reference  to  their  trade  and  their  demands? 

Mr.  DADIE.  Well,  I  presume  the  word  u oleomargarine"  could  have 
been  used  to  just  as  good  advantage. 

Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  Thursday,  April  12,  1900, 
at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 


APRIL  12, 1900. 

The  subcommittee  on  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Agriculture  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  William  Loriiner 
in  the  chair. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Hobbs,  the  committee  can  hear  ^ou  now,  if  you 
are  ready. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JOHN   S.  HOBBS,  EDITOR  OF  THE  NATIONAL 
PROVISIONED  OF  NEW  YORK  AND  CHICAGO. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  will  read  the  papei 
which  I  have  prepared. 

BUTTER  AND  BUTTERINE  AS  FOODS. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  lately  about  the  public  health  and  about 
pure  and  impure  foods.  Most  of  this  has  been  said  by  laymen  and 
those  who  ring  their  statements  upon  their  pocket  interests;  mostly 
by  the  butter  sellers  and  not  by  the  milk  farmers.  Scientists  have  no 
pocket  interest  at  stake.  According  to  Koenig,  the  noted  European 
expert,  normal  salted  butter  contains: 

Per  cent. 

Fat 87.00 

Casein 05 

Milk  sugar 05 

Mineral  matter 03 

Water 11.7 


OLEOMAKGARINE. 


7)3 


Market  butter  contains: 


Minimum. 

Maximo,  i. 

Fat  

Per  cent. 
76.37 

Per  cent. 
83.17 

Casein                                                                                       ...            

.19 

.71 

.85 

.58 

.06 

.96 

5.50 

14.49 

100.  00 

100.  00 

Wing,  the  American  authority,  gives  the  following  averages  of  an 
equal  number  of  samples  of  salted  butter  and  oleomargarine,  the 
samples  in  each  case  being  taken  for  the  consumptive  stock  in  the 
ordinary  way  of  trade: 


Kormal 
salted 
butter. 

Oleomar- 
garine. 

Fat 

Per  cent. 
85  00 

Per  cent. 
87  16 

Casein                                                     

1.00 

.43 

Salt 

3  00 

2  08 

Water                                                        ...                                       ... 

11.00 

10  33 

Total        -                                      

100  00 

100.  00 

Casein  is  principally  nitrogen.  Its  office  in  the  human  system  is  f>o 
form  muscle,  tendons,  tissues,  blood,  etc. 

Fat  in  nutrition  is  the  heat  producer.  It  supplies  warmth  to  the 
body  and  prevents  the  body  from  eating  up  the  nitrogenous  foods  for 
the  production  of  the  needed  warmth. 

The  glycerides,  or  fugitive  volatile  acids  of  what  is  called  creamery 
butter,  are  merely  flavors  without  any  food  value  whatever.  In  their 
rancid  state  they  are,  on  the  contrary,  harmful  to  the  system.  They 
are  in  no  sense  a  nutrient. 


DIGESTIBILITY  OF  THE  BUTTERS. 

Professor  Atwater,  of  Wesleyan  University,  after  exhaustive  experi- 
ments finds  that  the  digestibility  of  butter  fat  is  96  per  cent  and 
butterine  about  the  same.  There  was  no  practical  difference  in  the 
digestibility  of  the  fats  of  butter  and  of  butterine. 

H.  Luehrig,  the  eminent  German  scientist,  found,  as  a  result  of  his 
recent  investigations  of  commercial  oleomargarine,  which  he  bought  in 
the  open  market,  that  its  digestibility  was  9G.7  to  96.93  per  cent,  while 
Holstein  dairy  butter,  purchased  in  the  same  manner  and  experimented 
with  in  the  same  way,  digested  95.96  per  cent,  a  practical  verification 
of  Atwater.  The  experiments  with  these  butter  substances  were,  the 
scientist  tells  us,  u  carried  out  on  a  strong,  healthy  man,  29  years  old 
and  possessed  of  sound  normal  digestion." 

J.  C.  Duff,  S.  B.,  the  chief  chemist  of  the  National  Provisioner  Labo- 
ratory, official  chemist  of  the  New  York  Produce  Exchange,  after  a 
long  series  of  careful  tests  with  butter  and  butterine  reached  the 
following  conclusions: 

The  nutritive  value  of  both  butter  and  butterine  consists  almost  entirely  of  fats. 
The  quantities  of  fats  are  the  same  in  both;  the  fats  of  butterine  contain  nothing 

(•181) 


714  OLEOMARGARINE. 

that  the  fats  of  butter  do  not  contain,  hence  there  can  be  no  difference  in  the  food 
values  of  them,  except  that  the  thermal  or  heat-producing  properties  of  the  butter- 
ine  fats  are  superior  to  those  of  butter,  and  consequently  more  valuable  to  the 
human  system  as  a  food. 

The  digestibility  of  the  respective  fats  are  alike.  Repeated  experiments  have 
shown  this  to  be  true.  Numberless  analyses  of  bntterine  have  shown  it  to  be  abso- 
lutely free  from  ;my  and  all  deleterious  substances. 

The  melting  points  of  all  samples  of  butteriue  which  I  have  examined  have,  with 
no  single  exception,  been  as  high  as  the  temperature  of  the  human  stomach,  thus 
showing  its  free  capability  of  thorough  assimilation  and  of  free  digestion. 

I  desire  to  digress  here  to  say  that  this  chemist  has  experimented 
with  samples  from  original  packages  which  the  laboratory  had 
received  or  had  taken  by  its  own  agents  from  the  commercial  stocks 
in  every  Government-inspected  butterine  factory  in  the  United  States, 
with  the  exception  of  the  factory  in  Washington — The  National  Dairy 
Company,  I  believe  it  is  called — and  with  the  exception  of  the  Clover- 
dale  Factory,  at  Camden,  N.  J. 

Mr.  Duff  continues: 

I  unhesitatingly  pronounce  butterine,  as  manufactured  to-day  in  Government — 
inspeited  factories,  to  be  equal  in  every  respect — healthfulness,  assimilability, 
purity,  digestibility,  and  hygienic  value — to  creamery  butter. 

Butter  itself  has  about  8  per  cent  of  volatile  acids.  This  constitutes  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two  substances.  It  is  flavor.  When  these  volatile  acids  are 
imparted  to  butterine  the  difference  between  the  two  products  both  physically  and 
chemicallly  disappear. 

HEAT-PRODUCING  FATS. 

The  heat-producing  value  of  different  fats  is  as  follows: 

Calories 
or  unit  s. 

Fat  of  sheep 9,406 

Fat  of  swine 9,880 

Fat  of  oxen 9,357 

Butter  fat 9,192 

THE  BIRTH  OF  BUTTERINE. 

Mege-Mouries,  a  French  chemist  of  note,  in  response  to  the  wish  of 
Napoleon  III  for  a  cheaper  butter  for  the  sailors  and  the  poor,  devised 
and  patented  the  process  for  making  oleomargarine.  This  cheaper 
nutritious  butter  was  thus  discovered  and  first  made  in  1869.  It  lias 
been  made  and  eaten  ever  since  then.  Americans  and  Europeans 
simply  perfected  the  modern  product  and  processes  for  cleaning  and 
purifying  its  ingredients  to  a  greater  degree. 

The  French  colored  oleomargarine,  too,  before  the  American  dairy- 
men found  that  this  coloring  evened  up  his  rich  and  his  poor  butter  to 
one  selling  standard.  Then,  finding  the  deception  a  good  one,  the 
dairyman  desires  the  sole  right,  after  stealing  the  hue  of  Napoleon's 
poor-man  butter,  to  use  coloring  in  butter. 

Good  butter  fat.  according  to  Dr.  H.  W.  Wiley,  chief  of  the  division 
of  chemistry  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  contains : 

Per  cent. 

Olein 37.70 

Stearin IsQnn 

Palmitin ; f53'00 

Total , 90.70 

Now,  beef  fat  consists  mainly  of  stearin,  palmitin,  and  olein,  just 
like  butter  does. 


(*132) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  715 

Cotton-seed  oil  contains  25  to  30  per  cent  of  stearin,  some  palmitin, 
and  much  olein. 

The  essential  difference  between  these  fats  and  butter  fat  is  butyric 
flavor.  But  this  flavor  has  no  food  value  whatever.  A  bacteria  or 
microscopic  plant  is  now  planted  and  developed  in  cream  to  enhance  this 
butyric  flavor  or  smell  in  butter.  In  doing  so  not  a  particle  of  nutri- 
tive value  is  added  to  the  finished  product. 

These  innumerable  bacteria  plants  are  called  cultures' — butter  cultures. 
The  dairymen  of  Europe,  Denmark  especially,  plant  these  bacteria  in 
cream  and  develop  them  there  to  raise  the  smell.  Jtfow,  if  the  butter  - 
ine  maker  begins  to  plant  these  cream  stinks,  which  have  no  food  value, 
in  his  product  he  will  probably  be  jailed  for  fraudulent  imitation  of  an 
artificial  component  of  butter  on  the  plea  that  butter  used  them  first. 

A  PAINTED  VIRGIN. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  butter  is  a  painted  virgin  of  ill  repute. 
Butter  is  far  from  being  a  faultlessly  clean  and  harmless  product  of 
irreproachable  ancestry  and  character.  Cold  water  will  draw  off  but- 
ter's fugitive  volatile  oil  and  heat  will  cause  it  to  escape.  Then  the 
two  products  of  butter  and  butterine  are  physical  and  chemical  equals, 
barring  the  matter  of  disease  germs,  which  more  often  than  not  infest 
butter  to  the  injury  of  the  human  species. 

Our  dairies  will  not,  as  a  rule,  pasteurize  or  sterilize  their  cream, 
because  it  kills  that  sacred  flavor.  Without  being  so  treated  cream  is 
a  lurking  evil.  It  is  positively  dangerous  in  its  original  raw  and  tuber- 
culous state,  coming,  as  it  does,  from  uninspected  cows  that  graze  any- 
where, drink  any  sort  of  water,  sleep  in  tilth  and  foul  influences,  and 
exist  in  unsanitary  surroundings  and  uncouth  barns. 

As  to  the  problematical  healthfuluess  of  butter,  an  answer  might 
well  be  drawn  from  the  condition  of  the  milk  which  yields  the  creain 
from  which  it  is  made. 

Ask  the  medical  profession — the  practicing  physicians — of  this  coun- 
try if  they  will  recommend  the  use  of  cow's  milk  in  hospitals  and  among 
children  and  weak  people  without  its  being  first  sterilized  or  pasteur- 
ized. Yet  the  dairies  do  not  so  treat  the  milk  or  the  cream  from 
which  is  made  the  butter  about  which  we  hear  so  much  virtuous  talk. 
Physicians  will  not  prescribe  raw  milk  in  their  practice.  Mind  you,  the 
creain  of  such  milk  is  not  more  healthful  than  the  original  substances 
from  which  it  was  extracted.  Call  more  witnesses.  Ask  the  dairy 
inspectors,  dairy  commissioners,  and  the  boards  of  health  of  the  vari- 
ous cities  and  States  of  this  country  about  impure  milk.  The  answer 
is  always  the  same.  Call  even  some  more  testimony.  Ask  the  veteri- 
nary surgeons  what  have  they  found  as  to  the  invasion  of  the  udder 
and  to  what  extent  this  invasion  is  a  fact  in  the  dairy  herd.  The  same 
lurid  answer  as  to  deadly  germs  and  disease  is  given.  Ask  the  agri- 
cultural experiment  stations  of  this  country,  when  they  have  examined 
milk  and  the  cattle  that  give  it,  to  what  extent  are  the  milch  cows 
infected  with  dangers  to  our  system.  Ask  the  question  not  only  in  our 
own  land,  but  in  all  other  countries.  The  answer,  as  I  have  heard  it, 
is  simply  appalling.  Yet  the  butter  people  stand  up  before  Congress 
with  their  invalided  product,  produced  from  the  milk  of  uninspected 
cows,  and  ask  that  the  product  made  from  sterilized  cream  and  the 
purified  oils  of  Government-inspected  stock  be  driven  from  the  market 
for  the  unclean  thing  which  we  eat,  and  whose  assassination  of  us  we 
excuse  simply  because  it  smells  nice. 

(*133) 


716  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Some  years  ago  I  had  the  honor,  in  part,  of  representing  a  govern- 
ment whose  health  officers  made  an  extensive  inspection  of  the  dairy 
herds  of  a  famous  butter  and  cheese  district.  As  a  result  of  this 
inspection  this  competent  officer  found  that  more  than  half  of  the  cows 
then  in  service  were  infected  with  tuberculosis  in  one  stage  or  another 
of  that  dread  disease.  No  government  in  the  world  exercises  greater 
precautions  than  did  that  one  against  cattle  disease  or  paid  greater 
attention  to  the  condition  of  its  dairy  herds.  I  refer  to  an  Australian 
government.  Our  own  milch  cows  have  not  shown  a  better  character 
tli an  the  above. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Do  I  understand  you  to  use  "  oleomargarine "  and 
"butterine"  as  synonymous? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  Yes,  sir;  they  are  the  same.  It  is  simply  a  variety  of 
expression. 

So  well  established  is  this  fact  of  the  existence  of  the  disease  in  milk 
and  in  the  cows  which  furnish  it  in  Europe  that  the  pasteurizing  of 
cream  intended  for  human  consumption,  whether  in  butter  or  other- 
wise, is  insisted  upon  and,  in  most  quarters,  enforced. 

I  feel  that  most  well  informed  men  must  admit  the  above  as  facts. 
If  so,  then,  logically,  butter  needs  more  getting  after  and  legislating 
against  than  does  oleomargarine.  That  sort  of  legislation  is  needed  in 
the  interest  of  the  public  health.  Butterine  is  harmless.  There  is  not 
an  unhealthy  thing  in  oleomargarine,  while  butter  from  unpasteurized 
milk  is  a  hygienic  problem,  infested  with  tubercules  and  other  fatal 
germs. 

THE  BUTTER  TRUST. 

Does  Congress  desire  to  form  and  weld  together  a  butter  trust t 
What  are  the  market  conditions?  Creameries  now  get  higher  prices 
for  commercial  butter  than  ever  before  in  the  history  of  the  industry; 
this,  too,  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  methods  are  cheaper  to  work  out, 
machinery  is  cheaper,  milk  is  no  dearer — butter  however  is  dearer. 
The  milk  farmer  gets  about  $1.10  per  100  pounds  of  5  per  cent  cream 
milk.  About  15  cents  worth  of  milk  makes  1  pound  of  butter,  for 
which  the  grocers  have  paid  as  high  as  30  cents  per  pound  wholesale 
this  year.  It  is  lower  now.  The  grocer  sold  it  for  32  cents  per  pound, 
paying  rent,  hire,  and  other  trade  burdens  to  do  so.  The  creamery 
folks  made  15  cents  per  pound,  and  the  grocer  only  got  2  cents  per 
pound  even  after  a  lot  of  the  water,  for  which  he  paid  30  cents  per 
pound  also,  had  evaporated  after  the  butter  reached  his  store.  No 
wonder  the  butter  factory  doesn't  wish  to  let  the  grocer  sell  butterine! 
This  retailer  is  what  is  vulgarly  called  a  u  cinch  "  for  him.  Will  Con- 
gress step  in  on  top  of  all  this,  put  the  requested  10  cents  per  pound 
additional  tax  on  butterine,  wipe  the  product  from  the  market,  and 
thus  cement  the  structure  of  the  butter  combine?  The  good  sense  of 
Congress  is  not  yet  ready,  I  feel,  to  mark  up  prices  to  the  consumer,  to 
mark  up  still  higher  the  steep  profit  of  the  butter  factory  and  in  doing 
so  imperil  millions  upon  millions  in  legitimate  fields  affected  by  oleo- 
margarine and  the  manufacture  of  it. 

A  FORTY  PER  CENT  FRAUD. 

A  butter  legislator  has  been  pleased  to  talk  about  circulating  counter- 
feit money.  How  about  poor  winter  butter  as  a  counterfeit  and  a  fraud 
upon  the  consumer  in  the  guise  of  rich  summer  butter  and  at  the  price  of 
it  ¥  The  winter  butter  of  any  cow  is  30  to  40  per  cent  poorer  in  butter  fats 


OLEOMARGARINE.  717 

than  is  the  product  from  her  rich  summer  cream.  Butter  color  is  used 
instead  of  grass  to  cover  up  the  difference  in  rich  quality.  By  this  sim- 
ple dyeing  process  the  low  grade,  whitish,  winter- waxy  stuff  is  made  to 
look  like  the  superior  summer  substance  and  to  sell  for  the  same  price. 
Cold  storage  is  utilized  to  distribute  the  product  evenly  in  the  produce 
market.  So  this  40  per  cent  counterfeit  is  painted  up  and  shoved  out 
into  the  current  of  trade  as  the  Simon  pure  virgin  article.  It  is  a  fraud. 
It  is  poorer  than  even  "blind  tiger"  butterine,  and  no  better  than  much 
of  the  Western  "real  butter,"  which  conies  East  from  the  dairies  stuffed 
with  commou  hog  lard — not  leaf  lard — even  in  its  untreated  state. 

UNDER  COLOR  COVER. 

Housewives  know  that  oleomargarine  is  colored.  They  do  not  know 
that  butter  is  artificially  colored.  On  the  contrary,  they  believe  that 
real  rich  creamery  butter  is  sold  in  its  natural  color  and  that  the  com- 
plexion of  it  as  seen  in  the  tub  is  that  given  to  it  by  the  cream  of  the 
cow.  I  ascertained  the  truth  of  this  for  myself  in  New  York  City.  I 
interviewed  more  than  300  housewives  in  that  city  on  their  reasons  for 
purchasing  butter  of  such  and  such  color.  All  but  8  of  them  purchased 
butter  of  certain  colors  because  they  thought  that  hue  was  given  the 
substance  by  the  natural  richness  of  the  cream;  these  generally  pur- 
chased butter  of  lighter  color  because  they  feared  that  the  others  were 
artificially  colored,  Thus,  in  no  instance,  did  a  grocery  shopper  buy  a 
butter  which  she  thought  was  artificially  colored.  Yet  all  of  these 
butters  were  artificial  in  color.  Was  the  woman  in  each  case  deceived? 
Butteriue  is  the  same  quality,  whether  colored  or  not.  that  is  not  true 
of  butter — when  a  60  per  cent  tallowy  white  stuff  goes  masquerading 
under  the  color  of  a  100  per  cent  pure  article  selling  at  the  same  price. 
If  the  light  buff  summer  product — its  natural  color — were  placed  along 
side  of  the  white  winter  wax  on  the  same  counter  the  housewife  would 
severely  let  the  poor  white  stuff  alone.  Yet  some  people  ask  Congress 
to  tax  a  pure  and  a  wholesome  product  that  the  dairies  might  get 
higher  prices  for  their  deceptions. 

The  few  noisy  dairymen,  and  others  that  are  not  really  dairymen, 
who  go  to  form  what  is  swung  in  under  the  high-sounding  name  of 
"  The  National  Dairy  Union,"  are  a  curious  lot.  They  come  together  as 
a  combine  in  convention  and  protest  as  a  crowd ;  they  go  home  and  pro- 
test again  as  separate  concerns;  then  they  stand  out  by  themselves  and 
protest  as  businesses;  finally,  they  write  individual  protests  to  Con- 
gressmen. If  you  add  them  up,  it  is  a  big  noise,  but  it  is  all  done  by 
the  same  3,000  who  claim  to  represent  the  50,000  dairymen  in  this  coun- 
try. The  absence  of  the  other  47,000  looks  bad  for  the  cause  of  these 
agitators.  It  may  have  been  noticed  in  all  of  this  noise  that  the  public 
have  not  yet  asked  to  be  protected  against  oleomargarine.  The  chem- 
ists refuse  to  condemn  it,  and  the  grocers  desire  to  sell  it. 

You  can  not  make  oleomargarine  very  inferior.  The  low-grade  ingre- 
dients will  not  mix.  Paraffin  is  unnecessary  in  it.  It  would  be  foolish 
to  use  this  substance  when  stearin,  the  natural  component  of  butter 
and  butterine,  is  much  cheaper  than  paraffin. 

I  will  close  with  a  statement  of  Chief  Chemist  Duff: 

The  constituents  of  which  butterine  is  made  are  each  manufactured  with  the  pur- 
pose of  obtaining  pure  an.d  cleanly  products.  As  the  animal  products  are  obtained 
from  Government-inspected  cattle  and  hogs,  there  is,  first,  no  question  as  to  the 
healthfulness  of  the  lard,  and  oleo  oil  or  neutral  lard  suitable  for  this  purpose  can 
be  made  successfully  without  scrupulous  cleanliness  in  the  entire  course  of  its  man- 
ufacture. 

The  cleanliness  and  healthfulness  of  cotton-seed  oil  is  beyond  question. 

(135) 


718  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  Duff  ought  to  know,  as  he  is  considered  one  of  the  most  compe- 
tent arid  best  informed  oil  and  lard  experts  in  this  country,  having 
given  years  of  labor  and  work  to  those  products  in  the  great  packing 
houses  of  this  country. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  short  statement  of  the  working  of  a 
butteriue  factory.  If  the  committee  has  time  I  will  read  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  quite  a  number  of  gentlemen  to  be  heard 
this  morning,  and  I  would  suggest  that  you  leave  it  with  the  committee 
to  be  included  with  your  statement. 

Mr.  HOBBS.  Very  well,  then.  I  will  just  file  it. 

(The  additional  statement  of  Mr.  Hobbs  referred  to  will  be  found  at 
the  end  of  his  statement.) 

1  will  simply  state  that  the  oleomargarine  is  made  up — I  have  gotten 
this  from  all  the  factories  in  this  country — that  the  oleomargarine  is 
made  up  of  15  to  20  per  cent  of  cotton  seed  oil,  25  to  35  per  cent  of 
neutral  lard — the  neutral  lard  is  made  from  the  leaf  fat  of  the  hog,  the 
richest  and  cleanest  fat  in  the  animal — 20  to  35  per  cent  of  oleo  oil, 
which  is  made  of  the  caul  fat  of  fine  beeves,  and  from  20  to  35  per  cent 
of  butter. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Will  you  explain  what  is  meant  by  the  "caul"  fat? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  The  fat  around  the  caul  or  intestines.  Then,  last,  is  20 
to  35  per  cent  of  butter  oil,  which  is  made  from  cotton  seed  of  a  certain 
grade  at  a  certain  season  of  the  year,  and  it  can  not  be  made  from  any 
other  kind.  It  is  the  prime  oil,  and  I  will  state,  also,  that  this  extra 
prime  oleo  oil  is  about  nine  grades  above  common  tallow. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  You  make  the  statement  that  butter  is  higher  this  year. 
Is  it  higher  this  year  than  for  some  time? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  This  season  it  has  brought  a  uniform  price  of  30  cents, 
and  it  has  never  been 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  prices  for  the  last  two  years? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  I  went  over  a  scale  compiled  by  the  Produce  Exchange 
giving  the  prices  for  a  number  of  years  past. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Can  you  furnish  the  committee  that? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  I  can  get  it  in  New  York. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  I  wish  you  would  submit  a  statement,  with  data  on  that 
subject,  showing  the  prices  of  butter  in  the  open  market. 

Mr.  HOBBS.  I  will  do  so.  This  is  the  general  price  we  are  speaking 
of,  because  butterine  sells  for  15  cents  a  pound  to  18  cents  a  pound  in 
other  places.  But  I  am  speaking  of  New  York,  Boston,  Washington, 
and  Philadelphia. 

(The  statement  of  prices  referred  to  will  be  found  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  present  statement  of  Mr.  Hobbs.) 

Mr.  ALLEN.  What  has  been  your  observation  of  the  manner  in  which 
retail  dealers  conduct  the  sale  of  the  oleomargarine  product? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  I  went  into,  I  suppose,  forty  places  in  New  York  that 
are  selling  or  are  supposed  to  sell  butterine.  I  wanted  to  get  some 
myself.  I  will  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  after  analyzing  butterine  so 
thoroughly  in  our  laboratory,  I  use  it  on  my  table.  I  pay  my  grocer 
20  cents  a  pound  for  it.  The  man  does  not  know  what  my  business  is. 
He  simply  knows  me  as  one  of  his  customers. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Have  you  seen  any  disposition  on  the  part  of  any  of 
these  retail  dealers  to  conceal  the  stamp  placed  on  the  wrappers? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  I  will  answer  that  by  telling  you  of  a  discovery  that  I  have 
made  in  New  York  of  what  is  known  as  a  "blind  tiger."  The  produce 
dealer,  I  will  not  give  the  name  of  either;  it  is  a  professional  secret. 
The  New  York  Department  of  Agriculture  of  New  York  City  may  hunt 

(*136) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  719 

it  up.  It  is  a  factory  where  butter ine  was  made  out  of  crude  products, 
where  butter  was  reworked,  and  other  ingredients  put  into  it,  and 
where  the  produce  dealer  had  some  duplicate  tubs.  I  gave  that  state- 
ment to  Senator  Mason's  committee.  But  that  is  a  piece  of  villainy  for 
which  oleomargarine  is  not  responsible,  any  more  than  butter  me  is 
responsible  for  the  renovated  butter,  or  the  lard  that  is  dumped 
into  it. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Now,  as  to  the  retail  merchants? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  That  was  a  retail  merchant.  I  have  found  no  disposi- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  retailers  to  do  that.  There  are  very  few  in  New 
York  that  sell  it,  but  in  New  Jersey — I  went  over  there,  and  there  may 
be  more  there.  There  is  very  little  disposition  to  deceive  the  public. 
There  seems  to  be  more  of  a  disposition  to  educate  the  public  into  the 
idea  of  the  value  and  qualities  of  butterine  as  a  just  as  good  product, 
and  to  sell  it  as  such.  I  made  the  discovery  of  this  fraudulent  fellow 
by  finding  him  selling  Elgin  creamery  butter  at  21  cents  a  pound,  when 
I  knew  that  it  cost  27  cents,  and  I  tracked  him.  I  made  him  give  me, 
under  the  promise  of  secrecy,  the  name  of  his  produce  dealer.  The 
retailer,  I  believe  now,  was  perfectly  innocent. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Do  you  know  anything  about  what  has  been  said  with 
regard  to  the  Elgin  butter  people?  Do  you  know  whether  they  are 
making  any  objection  to  the  selling  of  oleomargarine,  or  making  any 
particular  fight  against  it  ? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  We  only  examined  butterine  to  see  how  it  is  sold.  The 
produce  papers  would  have  more  interest  in  the  produce  of  the  Elgin, 
butter  people. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Do  I  understand  you  that  there  is  no  complaint  from 
the  consumers  of  butterine? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  I  find  none  where  we  have  made  investigation. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  To  what  extent  have  you  made  that  investigation? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  I  told  you  that  I  interviewed  three  hundred  women  in 
New  York  City.  I  suppose  they  are  about  the  same  as  anywhere  else, 
as  most  people  are  made  up  mostly  of  human  nature  and  dirt. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Have  you  any  interest  in  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  No,  sir ;  not  a  dollar — I  must  qualify  that,  too.  I  believe 
1  have  inherited  an  old  plantation  in  South  Carolina,  which  I  pay  out 
money  for  every  year.  It  has  cost  me  ten  thousand  dollars,  and  I 
haven't  gotten  anything  out  of  it.  It  was  all  run  down  by  the  war. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  anything  about  this  renovated  butter 
business? 

Mr.  HOBBS.  Do  you  mean  the  prices,  or  the  business  itself? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Prices  first,  and  the  business  secondly.  I  wish  you 
would  give  us  a  short  statement  about  it. 

Mr.  HOBBS.  I  will  hand  you  in  a  statement  which  I  have  written, 
and  which  appears  in  my  paper.  The  butter  is  melted  and  the  acids 
are  freed,  and  it  is  worked  over  and  packed,  and  it  lasts  about  five 
days  and  then  goes  bad. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  introduced  a  bill  for  making  the  provisions 
of  the  oleomargarine  legislation  apply  to  renovated  butter.  There  is 
some  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  dairies  about  making  that  legislation 
apply  to  it,  and  about  its  being  a  good  thing. 

Mr.  HOBBS.  I  will  send  you  down  a  statement  giving  laboratory 
analyses  of  renovated  butter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  we  would  be  glad  to  have  it  Just  send  it  to 
the  committee. 

Mr.  HOBBS.  Very  well. 

(*137) 


720  OLEOMARGARINE. 

THE  WORKING  OP  A  BUTTERINE  FACTORY. 

After  a  thorough  personal  inspection  of  the  Government-licensed  and 
Government-inspected  butterine  factories,  some  of  these  inspections 
made  in  company  with  our  chief  food  chemist  and  expert,  and  all  of 
them  made  without  any  knowledge  of  the  oleomargarine  people  that  I 
was  coming,  I  find  the  following  a  summary  of  them  all. 

Of  course,  the  formulas  change,  but  only  as  to  proportions  of  the  same 
ingredients,  and  the  temperatures  vary  a  few  degrees,  according  to  the 
experience  of  the  particular  factory  making  the  variation.  There  is  no 
material  difference.  I  quote  from  my  memoranda: 

The  oleomargarine  is  made  up  of  a  mixture  of — 

Per  cent. 

Cotton-seed  oil 15  to  25 

Neutral  lard 20  to  35 

Oleooil •. 20  to  35 

Butter 20  to  35 

This  formula  changes  in  the  same  factory  slightly  with  the  varying 
temperatures  of  the  seasons. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  INGREDIENTS. 

The  healthfuluess  of  the  ingredients  which  go  into  butterine  and  the 
product  itself  is  better  understood  when  it  is  known  whence  and  how 
these  parts  of  the  product  come. 

Neutral  lard  is  a  swine  oil  made  from  the  leaf  fat  of  Government- 
inspected  animals.  It  is  the  richest,  cleanest,  and  finest  fat  of  the  hog. 
Being  a  hog  product,  it  might  from  religious  scruples  be  objected  to 
by  the  orthodox  Jew,  just  as  he  would  from  scruples  of  conscience  object 
to  the  whole  hog  and  all  his  connections. 

Oleo  oil  is  made  from  the  caul  fat  of  prime  hand  fed  Government- 
inspected  beeves.  It  is  the  best  oil  which  comes  from  the  bovine 
species. 

Butter  oil,  or  that  grade  of  cotton  seed  oil  which  is  so  known  because 
of  its  extra  prime  quality,  is  made  from  a  certain  grade  of  cotton  seed, 
gathered  and  selected  at  a  certain  stage  of  the  cotton  crop.  They  must 
be  well  matured  or  butter  oil  will  not  result.  It  is  the  finest  and  dear- 
est of  the  grades  of  cotton  oil.  The  butterine  maker  might  desire  to 
use  a  cheaper  oil,  but  no  other  quality  can  be  used.  To  attempt  it 
would  be  to  ruin  his  product.  The  above  grades  of  the  above  ingre- 
dients must  be  employed;  no  otlier  \vill  mix  perfectly.  These  ingredi- 
ents are  perfectly  healthful  and  very  nutritious.  Neutral  lard  has 
neither  taste  nor  smell.  The  same  may  be  said  of  butter  and  oleo  oils; 
such  is  virtually  true. 

Butter,  of  course,  comes  from  dairy  cream.  It  is  the  other  ingredient, 
and  is  pasteurized  because  not  from  Government  inspected  stock,  and 
to  kill  the  germs,  which  are  well  known  to  generally  exist  in  milk  from 
the  dairy. 

The  neutral  lard  is  melted  at  about  160°  F.;  the  oleo  oil  160°;  the 
cream  is  sterilized  at  about  170°. 

Most  factories  buy  their  neutral  lard  ready  for  mixing.  When  it  is 
not  so  bought  it  is  made  as  follows: 

1.  The  fresh  leaf  fat  is  hashed ;  that  is,  cut  up  for  cooking  the  oil  out. 

2.  The  pieces  go  into  a  rendering  kettle,  where  the  oil  is  cooked  out 
at  a  temperature  of  about  170°.    This  temperature  destroys  all  germs, 
if  any  remain  in  a  Government  inspected  hog. 

(*138) 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  721 

3.  The  oil  is  then  drawn  off  through  fine  hair-mesh  sieves  into  receiv- 
ing tanks,  where  it  is  cooled  down  to  about  110°  F.  for  churning. 

4.  From  the  tanks  this  neutral  is  taken  in  its  proportion  to  the  but- 
terine  churn,  where  it  becomes  one  of  the  ingredients  of  the  oleomarga- 
rine. 

Most  factories  buy  their  oleo  oil  ready  for  mixing  in  the  churn.  Where 
this  is  not  done,  the  oil  is  made  as  follows: 

1 .  The  caul  fat  of  prime  hand-fed  beef  purchased.    No  other  grade  of 
fat  will  do  for  this  extra  prime  oleo  oil. 

2.  The  fat  is  then  hasKed  for  cooking.    The  oil  is  cooked  out  at  a 
temperature  of  about  170°  F. 

3.  The  oil  is  next  drawn  off  through  a  thin, 'hair-mesh  wire  screen 
into  tanks,  where  it  is  cooled  down  to  a  lower  temperature. 

4.  Thence  it  goes  into  a  room  which  is  kept  above  90°  F.,  where  it 
remains  about  twenty-four  hours. 

5.  The  oil  is  then  pressed  to  separate  the  stearine  from  it. 

6.  The  oleo  oil  then  goes  into  the  churn  as  the  oleo  ingredient  of 
oleomargarine. 

The  butter  oil  joins  these  as  the  cotton-seed  oil  ingredient  of  the 
forming  product. 

The  cream  is  obtained,  of  course,  from  milk  bought  of  the  dairy 
farmers.  Very  few  butterine  factories  use  less  than  3,500  quarts  per 
day,  and  some  as  high  as  14,000  quarts  daily.  When  the  milk  reaches 
the  factory,  it  takes  the  following  course  to  the  margarine  churn: 

1.  The  milk  is  dumped  from  the  dairy  can  into  a  factory  receiving 
can,  where  it  is  tested  for  conditions  of  sweetness,  etc. 

2.  It  is  then  pumped  into  an  open,  zinc- lined  vat. 

3.  From  this  vat  it  runs  into  a  zinc-lined,  copper  cooling  trough, 
where  it  is  brought  to  a  temperature  of  about  80°  F. 

4.  It  then  goes  into  a  separator,  which  revolves  at  about  4,000,  and 
throws  out  the  milk  from  it.    The  bulk  of  the  cream  filth  is  dropped 
into  a  trough. 

5.  The  cream  then  goes  to  the  pasteurizer  to  be  sterilized.    The  skim 
milk  runs  through  chilling  coils  which  cool  it  down  to  about  40°  F.  by 
the  time  ifc  reaches  the  cans  that  receive  and  hold  it  for  disposal  to 
farmers  and  others.    The  cream  is  pasteurized  at  about  170°  F. 

6.  From  the  pasteurizer  the  cream  goes  to  a  can  which  is  placed  in 
ice  water  to  keep  it  at  a  temperature  of  34°  to  35°  F. 

7.  From  this  ice- water  tank  it  is  taken  to  the  churn  room  on  an 
upper  floor, 

8.  Where  it  is  ripened  at  a  temperature  slightly  above  70°  F.  for  the 
churn.    This  ripening  process  takes  about  30  hours,  more  or  less, 
according  to  the  season. 

9.  When  properly  ripened,  the  cream  also  goes  into  the  butterine 
churn  as  an  ingredient  of  oleomargarine. 

This  completes  the  parts  which  go  to  make  the  product  called  oleo- 
margarine or  butterine.  The  "butter  color"  is  also  added  now,  and  the 
whole  is  churned  into  one  homogeneous  mass.  This  is  completed  in 
about  eight  minutes. 

THE   FINISHED  PRODUCT. 

After  leaving  the  churn,  the  mass  is  run  into  vats  of  water  at  the 
bottom  of  which  are  anchored  cakes  of  ice  to  keep  the  temperature 
down  to  about  35°  F.  The  butterine  is  left  in  this  ice  bath  about  ten 
minutes  to  set  it. 

The  butter  is  then  thrown  on  incline  tables  with  wooden  shovels, 
*  S.  Rep.  2043 46  (*139) 


722 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


There  it  drains.  The  temperature  of  this  room  is  about  70°  F.  The 
butter  mass  drains  on  these  slanting  tables  about  ten  hours,  one  day's 
churning  being  worked  off  the  next  day.  The  salt  is  put  on  the  mass 
while  it  is  on  these  draining  tables.  The  butter  is  turned  thret'  or  four 
times  while  lying  there.  From  the  draining  tables  the  butter  goes  to 
the  butter  workers,  where  it  is  packed  for  the  trade. 

The  factory  and  all  of  the  vessels  and  tools  used  in  it  are  washed, 
steamed,  and  scoured  daily.  Live  steam  is  generally  used  in  cleaning 
churns,  vessels,  etc.  Not  a  smell  nor  an  odor  can  be  detected  anywhere. 
The  ventilation  is  perfect,  and  the  surroundings  are  sweet  everywhere. 

Butler  prices  for  sixteen  years. 
[In  cents  per  pound.] 


Month. 


1885. 


1886. 


1887. 


1889. 


1890. 


January  . . . 
February . . 
March 


June  ..     . 

July 

August 

September. . 

October 

November . . 
December  . . 

Average . . 


20}   to  27  ft 
19}    to  26  il 
2Uft  to  28| 
19}    to23}5 
17$    to21| 
13ft  to  16} 
14     to  17 
14J    to  18ft 
16      to  20} 
16ft  to  21ft 
16}    to  23 


20      to  27|§ 

17  &  to  24ft 
21ft  to  29ft 
20ft  to  25J 
18}    to  21§ 
148    to  18ft 
16i    to  19* 
17}    to  22} 
17{g  to  22f 

18  to  24 
19}    to.  25  ft 

19  to  26*3 


21}    to  26 
21      to  26V| 
22|    to25§ 
22ft  to  24§ 
16H  to  18ft 
16      to  17ft 
151    to  16} 
15§    to  16| 
18      to  19} 
19}    to23}§ 
19ig  to  23§ 
19*    to  23* 


17 

14ft 

20ft 

16& 

14} 

12} 

13*1 

15* 

18§ 

19f 

22* 


17}    to  22ft  !        17H  to  23{» 


to23if 


20^  to  24  ft 


18Ji  to  21J 


17J 


Month. 


1891. 


1893. 


1894. 


1895. 


1896. 


1897. 


1900. 


January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September . . . 

October 

November . . . 
December  ... 

Average . 


23} 

29 

25 

18} 

17J 

16* 

17} 


23* 
22} 

~21ft 


221 
24i 

23 
20  ,'t 
18ft 

18, 
20 


25ft 

Sf 

23} 

18  J| 

19ft 

20ft 

22ft 

24f 

24* 

24 


f 

18* 
18ft 


13ft 

If 

15} 


20 

18ft 
17?  | 
17* 
17ft 
17} 

21^ 
25 1B 
25T3B 


25ft  to  32 
23 iJ  to  28 
24}  to  28 


21ft 


PROCESS  BUTTER — HOW   MADE. 

Process,  or  what  is  usually  known  as  renovated,  butter  is  old,  rancid 
butter  reworked,  freshened  up,  and  sold  for  the  real  article.  The  work- 
ings of  this  phase  of  the  butter  business,  not  being  subject  to  munici- 
pal, State,  or  Government  supervision,  are  involved  more  or  less  in 
secrecy.  The  process  by  which  renovated  butter  is  produced  is  as 
follows : 

The  rancid,  old,  unsalable  butter  is  first  melted  and  heated  at  a  high 
temperature  to  drain  off  as  much  of  the  accumulated  gases  as  possible, 
after  which  cold  water  is  passed  into  the  oil.  The  oil  rises  to  the  top 
on  settling.  It  is  then  removed.  This  oil  constitutes  the  base  of  the 
process  butter.  The  water  in  which  the  oil  has  been  washed  eliminates 
the  solid  impurities,  etc.  After  being  removed,  tbe  oil  is  allowed  to 
set  in  a  cold  temperature  and  then,  when  sufficiently  cooled,  is  churned 
with  fresh  milk,  sometimes  with  cream. 

(*UO) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


723 


Fresh  milk  has  the  property  of  absorbing  very  freely  butyric  acid, 
the  rancid  properties  of  butter.  The  butter  is  then  worked  in  the  usual 
way  with  fresh  cold  water,  salt,  etc.,  thus  reproducing  fresh  butter  of 
degenerate  merit  and  short  life.  After  a  few  days  its  old  character 
begins  to  reappear.  There  are  no  records  as  to  the  effect  of  such 
butter  upon  the  human  health.  A  vile-smelling  flavoring  matter  is 
used  to  give  process  butter  the  desired  creamery  odor.  Coloring  mat- 
ter is  also  used  to  give  it  the  trade  color  of  butter  substances.  It  is 
then  marketed  in  tons  as  fresh  creamery  butter. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  GEORGE  B.  ALEXANDER. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I  will  state  that  I  am  engaged  in  the  manufacture 
of  cotton-seed  oil.  I  am  the  manager  of  the  mill  at  Greenville,  Mo.  I 
represent  the  Cotton  Seed  Crushers'  Association,  and  am  here  to  protest 
against  this  bill,  because  they  believe  it  is  injurious  to  their  interests. 
This  organization  that  I  have  mentioned  extends  not  only  to  all  of 
the  States  which  raise  cotton,  but  also  to  many  other  States  where 
machinery  is  made  which  is  used  in  oil  mills  and  to  States  where  cotton- 
seed products  are  handled.  The  object  of  this  association  is  to  improve 
and  promote  the  general  welfare  of  the  cotton-seed  industry  by  seeking 
new  channels  for  its  consumption  and  by  finding  improved  methods  of 
manufacture.  We  meet  always  once  a  year — asocial  meeting — and  dis- 
cuss these  matters.  There  is  invested  in  the  oil-mill  business  of  the 
South  about  $100,000,000.  It  is  comparatively  a  new  industry,  having 
been  built  up  in  the  last  few  £ears,  and  has  converted  what  was  for- 
merly worthless  stuff  into  a  valuable  product  and  added  to  the  wealth 
of  the  country  and  to  its  export  trade,  and  helped  to  make  the  balance 
of  trade  in  our  favor.  Our  product  enters  largely  into  butterine 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Before  you  go  into  that,  about  what  proportion  of 
the  value  of  a  bale  of  cotton  is  in  the  seed  itself? 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  Take  a  500-pound  bale  of  cotton  and  it  yields  on 
the  average  1,000  pounds  of  seed. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  At  present  prices  that  would  be  what  percentage  of 
the  total? 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  The  average  price  would  be  8  cents;  that  would  be 
-$40  for  a  bale  of  cotton.  The  last  seed  I  purchased  cost  me  $20  a  ton 
delivered  at  my  mill. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Twenty  dollars? 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  Yes;  $10  for  what  comes  out  of  a  500-pound  bale 
of  cotton. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  would  make  the  seed  worth  about  one-quarter 
of  the  cotton,  at  present  prices? 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  get  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  Gentlemen,  I  am  not  a  speaker,  and  have  prepared 
no  speech.  I  say  that  this  is  a  new  industry,  and  that  if  any  protection 
is  to  be  given  anyone  we  think  we  are  entitled  to  protection,  but  we 
do  not  ask  it.  All  we  ask  is  a  fair  field  and  a  free  fight,  and  we  will 
take  care  of  ourselves.  We  have  a  product  which  has  merits  and 
needs  no  protection,  and  we  object  being  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  another 
industry,  and  we  do  not  think  it  would  be  fair  to  tax  one  agricultural 
product  for  the  benefit  of  another.  There  are  other  gentlemen  who 
will  follow  me  and  who  will  have  something  to  say  on  the  subject,  and 

(•141) 


724  OLEOMARGARINE. 

I  thank  you,  gentlemen,  for  the  privilege  of  allowing  me  to  come  before 
you. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Just  one  question.  What  proportion  of  the  oil  produced 
from  the  cotton  seed  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I  am  not  prepared  to  answer  that  question  fully, 
because  I  know  nothing  at  all  of  the  butterine  industry.  I  only  know 
that  they  use  our  oil  in  the  manufacture  of  it.  I  understand  it  has  20 
per  cent,  but  there  are  gentlemen  here  who  can  answer  those  questions. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  To  whom  do  you  sell  or  ship  the  most  part  of  your  prod- 
uct; to  whom  does  it  go? 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  To  Chicago,  Louisville,  New  Orleans,  Cincinnati, 
and  other  places. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Do  you  export  it? 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  We  sell  to  exporters,  and  we  sell  to  Kansas 
City 

Mr.  ALLEN.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I  manufacture  only  the  crude  oil,  and  do  not  know 
anything  about  the  butterine  industry  at  all. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  You  do  not  manufacture  the  refined  oil? 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  No,  sir. 

I  would  state  that  in  giving  the  price  of  cotton  seed  I  said  that  I 
had  paid  $20  a  ton  for  the  last  seed  I  bought.  I  want  to  say  that  is 
not  the  average.  That  is  the  last  that  I  bought,  and  is  the  highest 
price  I  paid  during  the  season.  I  do  not  want  to  convey  a  false  impres- 
sion. 1  will  also  state  that  that  has  not  been  the  price  of  cotton  all 
through  the  year. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  J.  W.  ALLISON,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  ENNIS 
COTTON  OIL  AND  GINNING  COMPANY,  AT  ENNIS,  TEX.,  AND 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  TEXAS  COTTON  SEED  CRUSHERS'  ASSOCI- 
ATION. 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  after 
the  addresses  which  you  have  heard  from  the  members  of  this  delega- 
tion, there  really  remains  but  little  to  be  said  on  this  side  of  this  case. 
Appreciating  that  you  have  the  facts,  and  all  the  facts  in  this  case,  we 
are  here,  with  no  pretense  at  speechniaking,  to  take  up  and  discuss 
this  business  with  you  as  a  business  proposition.  Nearly  every  single, 
or  every,  member  of  the  delegation  here  present  is  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  either  as  a  producer  of  cotton  seed  or  a  mil)  owner  or  a 
dealer  in  the  products  of  cotton  seed,  directly  interested  in  the  question 
which  is  before  you  to  day,  and  it  is  our  object  to  give  you  our  side  of 
the  case  as  it  appears  to  us  from  our  several  individual  points  of  view. 
For,  after  all,  it  is  a  selfish  motive  that  brings  us  here.  I  am  here  as  a 
mill  owner  and  as  a  representative  of  the  Cotton  Seed  Crushers7  Asso- 
ciation of  Texas.  The  State  contains  about  132  cotton-seed  oil  mills, 
one-third  of  the  yearly  product  of  cotton,  and  has  nearly  one-third  of 
the  cotton-seed  product  that  is  made  in  the  United  States.  We  are  not 
butterine  people  any  further  than  that  one  component  portion  of  but- 
terine  is  our  product — cotton-seed  oil.  The  butterine  case  has  been 
very  ably  taken  care  of  by  the  gentlemen  we  had  the  pleasure  of  hear- 
ing yesterday,  and  we  propose  to  defend  only  our  portion  of  it. 

I  do  not  know  that  it  is  charged  at  all  here,  and  certainly  it  is  not 
proven,  that  butterine  is  an  unhealthful  product.  We  who  are  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  of  cotton- seed  oil  know  that  it  is  not  unhealthful. 


OLEOMARGA  RINE.  725 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  one  of  the  purest  and  most  delightful  of  the 
vegetable  fats.  The  seed  comes  to  our  mills  fresh  from  the  cotton  fields, 
and  is  never  touched  by  hand  from  that  time  until  it  is  delivered  to  the 
refiners  or  the  ultimate  buyers.  It  is  handled  exclusively  by  machinery. 
The  oil — that  part  of  it  which  is  now  under  discussion  here  to-day — is 
hermetically  sealed  by  nature  in  an  air-tight  case,  which  is  the  seed. 
It  is  carried  to  the  expressing  machinery  by  machinery  itself,  and  it  is 
not  touched  by  human  hand,  but  is  expressed  by  machinery.  There  is 
no  possible  opportunity  for  contamination.  The  process  of  expressing 
is  extremely  simple.  Nothing  is  left  after  it  but  the  pure  oil  itself. 
There  could  not  possibly  be  any  purer  fat.  There  could  not  come  to 
any  table  anything  cleaner.  I  am  not  a  technical  man,  and  do  not 
propose  to  enter  into  any  discussion  upon  butter  or  any  of  the  dairy 
products,  but  we  all  know  that  they  have  a  thousand  processes  of  being 
handled  in  a  small  way,  and  that  they  are  all  subject  to  a  great  deal  of 
contamination.  None  of  these  things  apply  to  cotton  seed. 

We  have  in  the  United  States  virtually  three  buyers  of  cotton-seed  oil. 
The  oleomargarine  people  take  our  best  product  and  pay  us  a  little  more 
money  for  it  than  anybody  else.  They  demand  an  exceptionally  good 
oil,  made  by  special  processes  from  selected  seeds.  Those  mills  which 
have  the  facilities  for  furnishing  this  oil  enjoy  that  trade  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  mills  who  through  any  cause  furnish  an  inferior  article. 
Next  comes  the  lard  people,  who  are  nearly  as  critical  in  their  demands. 
Next  the  soapmakers,  who  will  take  anything  we  give  them.  It  is 
because  we  do  not  want  to  lose  a  customer  who  buys  from  us  $3.000,000 
worth  of  cotton-seed  oil  every  year  that  we  are  opposing  this  bill.  It 
is  because  we  do  not  want  to  lose  a  customer  of  that  kind,  and  it  is 
because  they  tell  us  that  the  imposition  of  a  tax  like  this  will  put  them 
out  of  business  that  we  are  here  protesting  against  it.  As  I  said,  two 
of  the  gentlemen  here  are  directly  interested  in  this  business.  Some  of 
them  have  been  interested  in  it  from  its  infancy.  I  believe  there  are 
five  gentlemen  in  the  room  who  have  been  interested  in  the  business 
since  possibly  the  mills  in  the  United  States  could  have  been  counted 
on  the  fingers  of  your  hands.  To  day  I  think  there  are  about  three 
hundred  and  twenty-five  of  these  mills.  I  believe  there  is  present 
in  the  room  the  oldest  man  in  the  business — I  mean  in  a  business 
way,  for  he  is  yet  a  boy  in  some  respects.  I  myself  have  been  con- 
nected with  the  business  during  the  whole  of  my  business  life.  Unfor- 
tunately in  this  great  development  of  the  business,  the  demands  for 
the  product  have  not  quite  kept  pace  with  the  improved  facilities. 
Unfortunately,  too,  the  exact  statistics  in  regard  to  our  business  are 
absolutely  unattainable. 

The  mills  are  widely  scattered.  The  large  majority  of  them  are  small 
enterprises,  and  the  owners  are  men  who  are  not  accustomed  to  give 
out  the  details  of  their  business,  and  absolutely  refuse  to  do  so. 
Secondly,  exact  statistics  in  regard  to  the  business  are  unattainable, 
and  any  figures  given  with  regard  to  the  business  must  be  taken  as 
very  wide  approximations.  But  it  is  now  estimated  that  there  is 
crushed  in  the  United  States  about  two  million  tons  of  seed  annually. 
In  round  figures,  a  bale  of  cotton  means  half  a  ton  of  cotton  seed. 
Giving  a  crop  of  ten  millions  of  bales,  that  would  mean  five  million 
tons  of  seed.  Not  over  one  and  one  half  million  tons  of  seed  are  required 
for  the  repletion  of  the  crop  each  year.  That  would  leave,  on  the  face 
of  the  figures,  a  very  large  portion  of  the  seed  to  be  crushed.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  a  large  portion  of  that  seed  is  produced  in  out-of- 
the-way  places,  away  from  large  centers,  and  away  from  freight  facili 


726  OLEOMAEGAEINE. 

ties.  It  is  a  cheap  product,  and  can  not  stand  very  heavy  freight 
charges;  hence,  I  think  the  estimate  of  two  million  tons  is  a  large  one. 
1  believe  one-third  of  that  is  crashed  in  my  own  State. 

The  use  of  cotton-seed  oil  as  a  food  is  as  old  as  history  itself.  Long 
before  the  oil  was  made  in  the  United  States  by  modern  methods  it  was 
made  in  all  oriental  countries  and  is  to  day  a  staple  article  of  food  in  all 
the  oriental  countries.  Even  in  Bible  countries  it  is  spoken  of.  It  is 
spoken  of  to  day  as  one  of  the  adulterants  of  olive  oil  in  every  single 
one  of  the  olive-producing  countries,  and  the  statement  has  been  made, 
I  do  not  know  how  truly,  that  an  absolutely  pure  olive  oil  was  unat- 
tainable from  the  fact  that  the  olive  growers  in  the  olive-producing 
countries  are  in  the  habit  of  starting  their  oil  with  cotton  seed  oil.  Even 
the  farmer  who  makes  only  a  small  quantity  of  cotton  oil  in  the  hills  of 
Spain  starts  his  olive  oil  by  pouring  cotton  seed  oil  over  it.  How  much 
of  that  comes  back  to  us  as  olive  oil  I  have  no  means  of  knowing. 
The  butterine  people  are  amply  able  to  take  care  of  their  side  of  the 
business  of  their  products.  We  know  that  the  introduction  of  cotton 
oil  itself  as  a  cooking  fat  is  one  of  the  possibilities  of  the  future.  It  is 
being  done,  and  has  been  done,  in  a  small  way,  by  nearly  all  mills,  and 
is  used  by  nearly  all  the  people  in  their  immediate  localities. 

The  families  of  nearly  all  the  mill  operatives  use  cotton-seed  oil  at 
home.  It  certainly  can  not  change  its  nature  if  put  into  butterine. 
Upon  the  estimate  of  the  crop  as  just  made  the  sale  of  cotton  seed  in 
the  South  must  add  on  the  average  two  to  three  dollars  to  every  bale 
of  cotton  marketed  in  the  South.  There  is  a  little  more  than  that.  It 
adds  the  two  or  three  dollars  not  to  the  large  planter,  not  to  the 
dealer,  but  to  the  small  producer.  Those  of  us  who  are  older  in  the 
business  recollect  the  time  when  we  were  compelled  to  buy  our  seed 
from  the  small  farmers  and  the  negroes,  and  the  large  planter  consid- 
ered it  as  much  beneath  his  dignity  to  worry  about  the  sale  of  the  cot- 
ton seed  from  his  cotton  as  it  was  to  trouble  himself  about  the  selling 
of  the  eggs  and  chickens  on  his  place. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  And  is  not  it  a  rule  now  with  the  larger  planters 
that  the  cotton  seed  is  left  to  the  negroes  to  sell? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  It  is,  to  a  great  extent. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  the  mortgage  regulations  in  the  South  cotton-seed 
oil  was  especially  exempted  from  the  mortgages  in  order  that  the  ten- 
ant farmer  might  have  the  cotton  seed  with  which  to  pay  for  his  neces- 
sities. In  many  cases  it  was  his  profit  out  of  the  crop. 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Yes;  it  is  a  cash  product,  for  no  such  thing  as  a  pur- 
chase of  cotton  seed  on  time  is  known.  We  do  business  almost  always 
on  credit  in  the  South  and  cotton  seed  is  the  exception  to  that  rule.  It 
is  worth  so  much  in  cash,  that  is,  between  sunup  and  sundown; 
because  after  sundown  it  is  against  the  law  to  sell  it.  It  used  to  be 
left  to  the  negroes  and  the  smaller  farmers,  but  now  it  is  used  a  s  a 
medium  for  small  purchases;  a  load  of  cottonseed  is  used  as  a  cash 
payment  for  small  purchases.  They  do  that  because  there  is  no  dan- 
ger of  interfering  with  crop  mortgages.  We,  of  course,  are  not  going 
to  pay  the  price  for  this  cotton  seed  if  we  are  deprived  of  those  pur- 
chasers whom  this  bill  would  deprive  us  of.  We  will  take  it  out  of  the 
price  of  the  things  we  sell.  It  is  the  man  with  the  hoe  that  pays  for  it, 
and  the  manufacturer,  of  course,  would  pay  that  much  less  for  his  raw 
material.  While  it  may  be  true  that  we  would  replace  the  buyer  of  this 
$3,000,000  worth  of  cotton- seed  oil  if  the  butter  maker  went  out  of 
existence,  it  has  a  wider  significance.  We  have  struggled  for  years  to 
introduce  our  product  into  the  European  countries,  and  the  largest 


OLEOMARGARINE.  727 

consumers  there  are  the  olive-oil  producers.  Those  countries  are  talk- 
ing of  discriminating  against  cotton-seed  oil,  beginning  a  few  years 
ago  with  a  proposed  tax  in  Italy,  and  followed  up  by  a  proposition 
made  in  France  and  one  also  in  Germany,  and  an  effort  has  been  made 
to  crowd  our  product  out  of  those  countries,  because  of  its  competition 
with  the  other  edible  oils,  olive  oil  and,  in  Russia,  linseed  and  other 
oils.  Eussia  does  crowd  it  out,  because  she  admits  of  no  competition 
with  linseed  oil.  Russia  has  in  prospect  the  production  of  cotton-seed 
oil,  and  she  produces  now  a  small  quantity  of  it. 

Our  fear  is  that  if  our  friends,  the  pure  butter  people,  are  successful 
in  driving  out  the  butter  industry,  or  at  any  rate  in  putting  upon  it  an 
additional  tax,  whether  it  kills  the  industry  or  not,  that  puts  such  a 
stigma  upon  our  product,  which  foreign  countries  are  buying,  that  they 
will  not  continue  to  buy  of  us.  The  proposition  has  been  made  to 
exclude  American  oil  out  of  France  in  order  that  the  Egyptian  seed 
shall  be  crushed  in  France  and  cotton  oil  made  in  France.  If  it  should 
be  stated  that  the  American  oil  was  regarded  as  such  a  harmful  prod- 
uct in  America  as  to  be  taxed  at  home,  the  French  deputies  would  not 
be  slow  to  take  it  as  a  chance  and  crowd  us  out  of  France. 

We  are,  then,  confined  to  the  home  market,  which  consists  of  lard  com- 
petition. It  is  not  a  violent  supposition,  that  if  the  butter  producers 
have  been  able  to  legislate  us  out  of  France,  that  the  hog  people  would 
be,  if  those  things  conld  come  to  pass,  able  to  legislate  us  out  of  com- 
petition with  them  in  this  country,  and  the  cotton-seed  industry  would 
be  dead.  It  is  hardly  to  be  anticipated,  but  it  is  possible. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  What  effect  do  you  think  the  prohibition  of  the  manufac- 
ture of  oleomargarine  would  have  upon  the  price  of  your  oil,  per  gallon 
or  pound,  in  a  general  way? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  I  hardly  know  how  to  answer  that  question,  sir, 
except  to  say  that  it  deprives  us  of  a  market  that  is  consuming  between 
5  and  10  per  cent  of  our  production — of  our  best  production — and  pays 
us  more  money  for  it  than  any  other  channel  into  which  our  product 
goes.  We  would  then  sell  what  we  call  butter  oil  at  the  same  price 
that  we  sell  some  other  oil,  the  yellow  oil  being  butter  oil. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  What  is  the  price  of  your  butter  oil;  what  do  you  sell 
it  at  to  day  in  New  York  ? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Forty  to  45  cents,  depending  entirely  upon  the  qual- 
ity and  the  production  of  the  plant. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Forty  to  45  cents  a  gallon? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Yes,  sir;  as  against  37  cents  for  the  other  oil. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  And  the  7  to  8  cents  additional  makes  three  to  four 
dollars  a  barrel? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  One  of  the  gentlemen  here  has  a  sample  of  white  oil. 
I  am  sorry  that  we  have  not  any  sample  of  the  butter  oil,  but  we  did 
not  have  any  idea  that  you  would  want  it,  and  did  not  bring  it.  But 
I  have  a  sample  of  the  white  oil  here.  (The  witness  here  produced  a 
bottle  of  the  white  oil  spoken  of  and  exhibited  it  to  the  committee.) 

Mr.  COONEY.  What  do  you  mean  by  butter  oil;  is  that  the  oil  that 
goes  into  the  butterine? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  That  is  the  name  for  the  highest  grade  of  butter  oil. 
It  is  a  special  oil  and  is  a  kind  made  from  selected  seed,  and  is  the  kind 
of  oil  that  goes  into  the  butterine. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  How  do  you  figure  that  this  bill  would  drive  the  oleo- 
margarine out  of  the  market? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  I  do  not  figure  that  at  all.  I  did  not  state  that  as  a 
fact  of  my  own  knowledge.  I  asserted  what  the  butteriue  people  have 

(*U5) 


7-28  OLEOMARGARINE 

told  us,  which  is  that  tho,  10  cents  a  pound  in  addition  to  the  cost  of 
its  manufacture  would  prohibit  its  manufacture  in  competition. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  do  not  contend  that  this  would  place  10  cents  a 
pound  on  all  butterine? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Colored! 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Colored  as  butter. 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Bat  when  it  is  not  colored  you  do  not  understand  it 
as  imposing  any  tax  ? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  No;  I  understand  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  two  questions  in  one  there.  You  say 
colored  as  butter.  The  contention  is  that  it  is  not  colored  as  butter 
but  that  they  simply  use  a  color.  Did  you  intend  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion in  that  way — colored  as  butter,  or  colored  ? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  I  do  not  understand  the  question. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  The  question  I  asked  was — 

Mr.  ALLISON.  I  understand  his  question  to  be,  if  my  understanding 
is  correct,  I  understand  this  bill  to  impose  a  tax  on  oleomargarine 
colored  as  butter. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  ALLISON.  That  is  all ;  colored  like  the  butter  we  know ;  whether 
that  is  the  natural  color  of  the  butter  or  not,  I  am  not  a  butter  maker, 
and  I  do  not  know.  I  do  know  this,  that  the  producers  of  natural  but- 
ter in  all  of  the  butter  producing  countries  are  themselves  the  largest 
producers  of  cotton-oil  butter.  They  are  themselves  the  producers  of 
the  butter  containing  very  largely  the  very  element  that  we  furnish  to 
the  butterine  manufacturer  to  put  in  his  butterine,  and  in  this  way — of 
the  2,000,000  tons  of  cotton  seed  annually  crushed  in  the  South,  there 
is  made  three-quarters  of  a  million  pounds  of  cotton  seed  meal,  which 
is  recognized  as  the  most  nutritive  and  highly  concentrated  cattle 
food  known.  The  butter  producers  are  buyers  of  the  cotton  seed  meal. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  To  feed  to  their  cows  ? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Yes,  sir;  the  German  and  Holland  people,  who  are 
the  largest  butter  producers,  buy  it  simply  because  the  cattle  fed  upon 
it  produce  better  butter  and  more  butter.  It  produces  it  because  of  its 
nutritive  qualities,  and  because  of  that  certain  small  percentage  of  the 
cotton-seed  oil  left  in  the  meal,  which  is  of  so  nearly  the  same  constit- 
uents of  the  material  required  to  make  the  butter  that  it  passes  through 
the  cow's  stomach  almost  unchanged  into  the  milk  ducts. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Does  it  bring  about  as  much  when  sold  to  the  dairy 
people  as  food  for  their  cows  as  when  it  is  sold  to  the  butterine  people? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  1  think  you  misapprehend  me. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  mean  cotton -seed  oil? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Will  the  cotton  seed  produce  as  much  when  sold  to 
the  dairy  people  as  feed  for  cows  as  when  sold  to  the  butteriue  people? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  I  do  not  understand. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Is  the  oil  used  in  the  production  of  oleomargarine 
higher  priced,  and  does  it  bring  more  value  to  the  producer  of  cotton 
seed  than  the  cotton-seed  meal  when  sold  to  the  dairy  poople? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Why,  thay  are  two  entirely  different  products.  They 
are  entirely  different  products.  They  are  not  to  be  compared  at  all — 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  What  you  want  is  to  know  which  is  the  by-product 
and  which  is  the  main  product? 

Mr.  BAILEY.  What  do  you  sell  the  cake  at? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Twenty-one  dollars  a  ton,  about. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Twenty-one  dollars  a  ton? 

(*146) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  729 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  That  is  what  it  will  cost  the  dairyman.  Now,  you  say 
your  oil  is  worth  how  much  a  gallon  ? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Forty  cents;  that  is,  the  butter  oil. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  And  8  pounds  to  the  gallon? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Seven  and  a  half;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Five  cents  a  pound  ? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  It  would  bring  $100  a  ton  in  oil,  and  $20  a  ton  in  these 
by-products. 

"Mr.  BAILEY.  Of  course  there  is  oil  in  this  [indicating  piece  of  oil 
cake  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Neville], 

Mr.  ALLISON.  It  is  impossible  to  extract  it,  even  if  we  thought  it 
advisable.  By  solvents  it  would  be  possible  to  take  all  the  oil  out. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  simply  leave  some  of  the  oil  in  there? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Yes,  about  10  per  cent,  and  for  the  very  reason  that 
it  makes  it  more  valuable  as  a  feed  for  cattle. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  oil,  you  say,  comes  to  $100  a  ton? 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Yes;  and  this  cake  to  $20? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Yes,  about  $20  a  ton. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  I  have  bought  carloads  of  it. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  The  point  I  desired  to  make  was  that  even  though  the 
oil  was  not  used  in  oleomargarine  a  large  portion  of  it  still  remained  in 
the  cake,  and  would  be  sold  to  the  cattle  feeders. 

Mr.  ALLISON.  It  is  left  intentionally  in  the  cake,  in  order  to  improve 
the  quality  of  the  cake  as  a  feed  for  the  cattle. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  am  sure  that  Mr.  Neville  does  not  understand. 
This  is  after  the  oil  is  pressed  out  [indicating  piece  of  cake  in  his  hand]. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  I  understand  that  that  is  oil  cake 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  main  product  is  the  oil,  and  the  by-product  is 
the  cake.  Then,  in  addition  to  that,  there  is  the  hull,  which  is  used  for 
cattle  feed. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Eoughers. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  But  the  principal  feed  with  us  is  oil  cake,  in  Western 
Nebraska,  and  it  has  oil  in  it.  I  do  not  know  what  the  quantity  it  has 
in  it  is. 

Mr.  ALLISON.  It  is  a  butter  producer.  If  it  is  possible  to  kill  the  oil 
mills  of  the  South  the  butter  feeder  would  suffer.  It  would  deprive 
him  not  only  of  the  best  feed,  but  of  the  feed  that  enables  him  to  use 
his  home-grown  feeds — cottonseed  meal  being  a  highly  concentrated 
food  which  enables  him  to  use  roughers. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Suppose  you  were  deprived  of  the  sales  for  your  oil, 
would  it  pay  you  to  run  your  cotton-seed  mills  just  for  the  cake? 

Mr.  ALLISON.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  the  point. 

Mr.  ALLISON.  Mr.  Alexander  has  said  that  he  was  buying  cotton- 
seed cake  at  $20  a  ton.  It  is  worth  a  little  over  that.  It  takes  three 
tons  of  cotton  seed  to  make  one  ton  of  cake. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  R.  CANTRELL,  SECRETARY  OF  THE  WILLIAMS 
&  FLASH  COMPANY,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY,  EXPORTERS  AND  COM- 
MISSION MERCHANTS  OF  COTTON-OIL  PRODUCTS. 

Mr.  CANTRELL.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  this 
subject  has  been  so  thoroughly  gone  over  that  there  is  very  little  I  can 
add  to  it,  but  I  do  desire  to  call  your  attention  for  a  moment  to  a  few 
figures  going  to  show  the  extent  to  which  the  manufacture  of  cotton- 

(*U7) 


730  OLEOMARGARINE. 

seed  oil  and  its  by-products  has  grown,  and  the  position  it  occupies  in 
the  foreign  commerce  of  this  country. 

Your  attention  has  been  called  to  the  injury  the  passage  of  the  Grout 
bill  would  inflict  on  the  southern  farmers  and  laborers  by  depriving  the 
manufacturers  of  cotton  oil  of  one  of  their  most  important  home  outlets. 

Not  only,  however,  would  the  home  consumption  of  cotton  oil  be  cur- 
taile.d,  if  this  proposed  bill  should  become  a  law,  but  we  should  also 
suffer  in  our  export  demand,  and,  as  evidenced  by  the  following  figures, 
the  cotton-oil  exports  in  the  last  three  years  have  assumed  a  position 
of  considerable  importance  in  this  country's  foreign  commerce. 

In  1897  the  exports  were  27,198.883  gallons,  or  543,976  barrels. 

In  1898  they  were  40,230,784  gallons,  or  804,615  barrels.  In  1899  they 
were  50,627,211)  gallons,  or  1,021,514  barrels,  which  latter  amount,  taken 
at  the  average  price  of  that  year,  represents  a  value  in  dollars  and 
cents  of  $13,103,076.94.  This  sum  simply  represents  the  exports  of  oil 
alone,  and  does  not  include  the  exports  of  meal  and  cake,  which  would 
amount  to  as  much  more. 

This  foreign  demand  has  been  created  after  years  of  effort  and  at  the 
expenditure  of  thousands  of  dollars,  but  at  this  juncture  it  is  menaced 
by  country  after  country  endeavoring  to  stop  its  import  by  the  imposi 
tion  of  prohibitive  duties.  France,  to  whom  was  shipped  last  year 
339,187  barrels,  and  Germany,  70,428  barrels,  are  both  laboring  to  enact 
legislation  that  would  close  their  ports  to  this  great  American  staple: 

Now,  if  our  own  legislature  should  stigmatize  this  article,  and  by  a 
prohibitive  tax  prevent  its  sale  in  this  country  in  the  form  of  oleomar- 
garine, it  would  be  putting  a  weapon  in  the  hands  of  our  foreign  com- 
petitors that  they  would  not  fail  to  use  to  enact  legislation  that  would 
prohibit  its  sale,  thus  entailing  a  loss  of  millions  of  dollars  to  our  for- 
eign commerce  and  the  effects  of  which  would  be  felt  by  every  railroad 
in  this  country  and  by  every  ocean  steamer  leaving  our  ports. 

The  growth  of  the  cotton  oil  industry  has  been  rapid,  and  the  demand, 
especially  in  this  country,  has  failed  to  keep  pace  with  the  increasing 
production,  therefore,  if  the  article  were  deprived  of  any  portion  of  its 
already  inadequate  home  demand  it  would  mean  that  the  surplus  thus 
created  would  have  to  force  an  outlet  in  Europe,  and  this  could  only  be 
accomplished  at  the  expense  of  values. 

If  the  outlet  we  now  possess  in  oleomargarine  is  destroyed  and  a 
surplus  thus  created  it  would  cause  a  decline  in  values  of  at  least  $2 
per  barrel,  which,  taken  on  last  year's  production  of  2,000,000  barrels, 
means  a  loss  to  the  farming  interests  of  the  South  and  Southwest  of 
$4,000,000. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  proposed  legislation  in  France 
is  against  oleomargarine  and  not  against  cotton-seed  oil  ? 

Mr.  OANTRELL.  No,  sir;  that  is  not  true.  France,  a  lew  years  ago, 
and  up  to  within  the  last  four  or  five,  took  about  ten  or  twenty  thous 
and  barrels  of  cotton-seed  oil.  They  used  the  arrish-seed  oil,  which  is 
a  wild  peanut,  as  well  as  several  other  things  of  that  sort,  but  the  cot- 
ton-seed oil  was  so  much  cheaper  and  purer  that  the  manufacturers  of 
those  countries  were  forced  to  use  it,  and  they  were  forced  to  go  to  the 
cotton-seed  people.  And  they  found  themselves  compelled  in  France 
to  put  a  prohibitive  duty  upon  it. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  only  a  few  weeks  ago  they  did 
pass  legislation  against  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  OANTRELL.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  The  reason  I  asked  you  is  because  I  read  it  only  day 
before  yesterday. 

(*148) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  731 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  comparative  purity 
of  fine  cotton-seed  oil  and  olive  oil  and  vegetable  products? 

Mr.  CANTRELL.  Yes,  sir;  but  I  would  very  much  prefer  the  cotton- 
seed oil.  In  fact,  salad  oil  which  is  made  from  cotton  seed  oil  is  not 
only  purer,  but  more  cleanly,  and  it  is  sold  in  all  the  large  cities  of  the 
North  now  as  cotton- seed  oil.  In  fact,  the  bulk  of  the  olive  oil  coming 
to  tbis  country  is  mostly  the  poorer  grade,  and  it  is  prepared  and  made 
in  rather  an  uncleanly  manner.  The  olives  are  put  in  the  press  and 
the  first  pressure  taken  from  them  is  a  very  tine  grade  of  oil,  and  that 
retails  in  a  city  like  New  York  in  this  country  for  four  or  five  dollars  a 
gallon.  Then,  having  extracted  the  better  parts  of  the  oil,  the  olives 
are  put  in  a  bath  of  hot  water,  and  sometimes  salt,  and  are  pressed 
again,  and  that  is  a  very  inferior  product,  and  is  the  olive  oil  that  is 
sold  to  the  average  person  in  the  larger  cities,  and  is  absolutely  unfit 
for  consumption. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  EDWARD  S.  READY,  SECRETARY,  TREASURER, 
AND  MANAGER  NEW  SOUTH  OIL  COMPANY,  OF  HELENA,  ARK. 

Mr.  READY.  I  have  never  made  a  speech  in  my  life,  Mr.  Chairman, 
nor  am  I  used  to  talking  publicly.  You  gentlemen  have  listened  very 
patiently  to  the  other  gentlemen,  and  consequently  I  will  say  nothing 
of  the  general  conditions,  and  will  speak  only  of  local  conditions,  and 
that  very  briefly.  We  have  in  Llelena  four  oil  mills.  The  town  is 
located  on  the  Mississippi  Kiver.  We  have  there  four  oil  mills  and  the 
cost  of  the  equipment  of  these  four  mills  is  about  $350,000.  In  addi- 
tion to  that  we  have  capital  invested  to  the  extent  of  another  $350,000, 
making  $700,000  invested.  We  employ  200  people,  all  adults  with  a 
few  exceptions;  there  may  be  eight  or  ten  boys  in  the  whole  business. 
Sixty-six  to  70  percent  of  those  men  are  heads  of  families  and  I  think 
I  am  safe  in  saying  that  out  of  the  population  of  8,000  inhabitants 
those  four  mills  support  750  to  800  people. 

Thus,  you  see,  it  is  a  matter  of  very  considerable  moment  to  us.  Of 
those  employees  about  85  per  cent  are  colored  and  the  remaining  15 
per  cent  are  whites.  We  handled  last  season,  I  presume,  as  near  as  I 
can  get  at  it— I  can  safely  say  that  we  expended  $600,000  for  the  pur- 
chase of  cotton  seed.  We  ran  about  six  months  in  the  year  and  fur- 
nished employment,  as  1  say,  immediately  in  the  mill,  for  200  men. 
The  surrounding  country  depends  very  largely  in  addition  to  the 
town — 700  or  800  of  the  population  depend  very  largely  upon  our 
mills.  The  farmers  come  there,  as  has  been  stated  to  you,  the  negro 
small  cropper,  and  the  small  white  farmer,  and  we  buy  all  of  our  sup- 
plies of  seed  from  them.  If  this  butterine  or  oleomargarine  law  is 
enacted  it  would  affect  our  markets  very  considerably.  It  would 
result  in  the  reduction  of  the  price  of  seed,  how  much  I  can  not  say, 
but  it  would  be  largely  felt,  and  I  felt  that  I  should  come  here  and 
enter  our  protest  against  it,  and  request  the  committee  not  to  deal  too 
harshly  with  the  butterine  industry,  as  it  largely  affects  ourselves. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  other  questions? 

Mr.  COONEY.  You  have  four  mills? 

Mr.  KEADY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  COONEY.  You  are  secretary  and  treasurer  of  the  society  there? 
Of  what  is  that  society  composed? 

Mr.  READY.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  say  that.  I  am  secretary  and 
treasurer  of  one  of  the  four  mills. 

(*149) 


732  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  COONET.  All  these  mills  are  acting  independently  1 

Mr.  READY.  Entirely  so. 

Mr.  COONEY.  Absolutely? 

Mr.  READY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  COONEY.  £o  connection? 

Mr.  BEADY.  No,  sir;  none  whatever. 

Mr.  ALLEN,  No  trust  in  them  ? 

Mr.  KEADY.  No,  sir.  There  is  one  of  the  mills  that  is  under  the  so- 
called  American  Cotton  Oil  Trust. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Is  not  it  a  fact  that  the  cotton-seed  crushing  trust 
business  is  one  of  the  few  instances  of  a  trust  which  is  not  a  success? 

Mr.  READY.  Yes,  sir;  I  would  say  that  I  was  connected  with  the 
American  Cotton  Seed  Oil  Trust  and  left  it  in  1897  and  went  into  busi- 
ness on  my  own  account,  and  I  did  not  fear  it,  and  I  think  the  three 
independent  mills  there  in  my  town  are  hitting  it  pretty  hard. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Independent  mills  are  springing  up  everywhere? 

Mr.  READY.  Yes,  sir ;  everywhere.  Two  were  built  right  close  there 
last  year. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes,  one  was  built  right  in  my  own  town. 

STATEMENT   OF   ME,  W.  H.  WRIGHT,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  PINE 
BELT  COTTON  OIL  COMPANY,  OF  LITTLE  ROCK,  ARK. 

Mr.  WRIGHT.  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  about  everything  has  been 
said  that  ought  to  be  said  from  the  crushers'  standpoint.  There  are 
other  gentlemen  here  in  different  lines  of  the  business  who  have  not 
been  heard,  and  I  had  rather  give  up  my  time  to  them. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  MARION  SANSOM. 

Mr.  SANSOM.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  to  go  away  to-inorrow  and  I  am 
here  representing  the  cattle  interests  of  Texas,  and  I  will  only  detain 
you  for  a  minute — just  long  enough  to  cast  my  vote — and  if  you  will 
allow  me  I  would  just  Hke  to  do  the  voting  act  for  you,  as  they  sent  me 
up  here.  As  I  come  up  here  representing  these  people  I  would  like 
to  get  before  the  committee,  and  I  am  obliged  to  leave  to-morrow.  I 
have  here  a  letter  from  the  live  stock  association  and  they  just  simply 
wanted  me  to  appear  here  in  opposition  to  this  bill  as  representing 
them,  and  also  I  speak  in  the  interest  of  the  cotton-seed  oil  industry. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  made  this  arrangement  for  this  day's 
meeting  for  a  cotton-seed  oil  meeting. 

Mr.  SANSOM.  I  will  just  read  this  letter  so  you  will  understand  what 
my  credentials  are. 

(Mr.  Sansom  here  read  the  letter  referred  to.) 

We  come  here  to  show  you  the  interest  we  feel  in  this  matter  and  we 
put  forward  our  best  people  here  yesterday  to  take  this  matter  up.  We 
wish  to  show  to  you,  however,  that  Texas  is  interested  in  every  single 
article  that  enters  into  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  except  the 
coloring,  so-called,  and  I  do  not  know  but  we  may  manufacture  that; 
but  I  do  not  know  what  it  is.  But  we  do  raise  about  one  million  head 
of  cattle  which  are  slaughtered  annually  and  which  you  understand, 
as  has  been  gone  over  to  you  a  number  of  times,  enter  very  largely 
into  the  .product.  We  raise  about  one- third  of  the  cotton  raised  in  the 
United  States.  We  are  third  on  the  list  of  hog  raisers  of  the  United 
States.  So,  you  see  we  are  very  materially  affected  by  this  legislation. 

(*150) 


OLEOMAKGARINE  733 

Now,  it  occurs  to  me  this  way,  that  this  thing  has  simmered  down  very 
largely  to  the  matter  of  color.  We  are  not  a  manufacturing  people 
there  in  Texas.  We  hope  some  day  to  get  in  line  and  are  getting  along 
a  little.  This  is  really  the  only  manufacturing  industry  we  have  worth 
speaking  of  in  the  State,  in  which  we  have  about  130  mills. 

We  are  perhaps  the  largest  buyers  of  imported  goods  in  this  Union. 
When  I  say  imported,  I  mean  from  other  States.  We  send  our  cotton 
up  here  to  our  Eastern  neighbors  and  they  make  it  into  goods  so  beau- 
tiful and  so  fine  we  do  not  know  whether  it  is  silk  or  cotton;  but  we 
have  never  said  that  they  have  no  right  to  do  that,  but  we  have  gone 
on  and  bought  the  cotton.  They  have  put  a  coloring  in  it  which  makes 
it  very  beautiful  and  tine,  and  it  suits  us,  and  then  we  want  to  buy  it. 
And  we  can  see  no  reason  why  things  should  not  be  colored.  They  put 
a  color  on  all  kinds  of  machinery  we  buy.  I  do  not  know  whether  col- 
oring makes  machinery  any  better;  perhaps  it  does.  Whether  it  makes 
butter  any  better  1  do  not  know,  but  I  suppose  the  people  like  it  better 
for  that  reason.  But  we  simply  enter  our  protest,  insomuch  as  we 
understand  it,  from  the  cattle  raisers'  standpoint,  regarding  this  as  a 
question  of  class  legislation,  one  class  against  the  other,  and  it  appears 
to  us  we  are  not  considered  as  we  should  be  in  this  matter.  All  we 
ask  is  to  be  let  alone.  Of  course  if  we  are  doing  anything  that  is  going 
to  really  injure  anybody,  then  we  are  willing  to  be  called  down;  but  we 
do  not  think  it  is  proper  and  just  to  people  that  have  been  struggling 
as  we  have,  sending  away  all  of  our  raw  material  to  be  manufactured 
elsewhere,  and  this  is  the  only  manufacturing  industry  that  we  have. 
I  will  say  that  all  of  our  cotton  has  been  sent  away  to  be  manufactured 
to  the  Eastern  cities  and  it  has  been  manufactured  and  we  have  sent 
all  our  hides  and  cattle.  We  are  now  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of 
this  product,  in  the  manufacture  of  cotton-seed  oil,  and  it  is  a  big 
thing  to  our  people,  and  Texas,  and  from  this  we  expect  to  get  into 
other  lines,  and  if  we  get  stricken  down  and  knocked  out  in  this  matter 
right  on  the  start  we  do  not  think  it  is  really  fair. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  If  you  were  to  send  your  cotton  up  to  the  manufactur- 
ing concerns  up  here  and  they  should  manufacture  it  into  imitation 
silks  and  send  it  down  to  you  and  sell  it  to  you  for  silk,  would  you  care 
or  not? 

Mr.  SANSOM.  If  they  sold  it  to  me  at  a  proper  price,  I  probably  would 
not.  If  they  sold  it  to  me  for  a  price  that  was  unjust,  I  probably  would 
not  like  it. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  The  difference  is  that  you  manufacture  this  oleomar- 
garine in  such  a  shape  that  I  can  not  tell  it  from  butter,  and  they  put 
cotton -seed  oil  and  other  kinds  of  oil  into  it  and  deceive  me,  and  yet 
you  think  it  does  not  hurt  me  and  you  insist  that  you  have  a  right  to 
do  that. 

Mr.  SANSOM.  I  would  like  to  answer  that  question  this  way :  If  the 
silk  producer  and  the  wool  producer,  if  you  please,  had  as  much  right 
to  come  to  Congress  and  ask  for  legislation  against  wool  entering  into 
the  manufacture  of  cotton  goods,  or  cotton  into  wool  goods,  which  is 
usually  the  cheaper  of  the  two,  as  you  all  know  very  well — as  you 
know  woolen  goods  has  always  a  percentage  of  cotton  goods  mixed 
in  with  it — now,  the  wool  man  would  have  just  as  much  right  to  come 
to  us,  he  manufacturing  the  most  valuable  part  of  it.  We  object  to 
this.  You  and  all  of  the  balance  of  us  have  worn  and  are  wearing 
every  day  what  is  supposed  to  be  till  wool  and  a  yard  wide,  and  yet  we 
all  know  that  there  is  a  large  percentage  of  cotton  in  all  this  goods. 
You  are  not  particularly  damaged  and  you  have  got  your  goods  worth 

(151) 


734  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  money,  and  you  have  the  same  right  the  wool  man  does  to  come  to 
Congress  and  ask  to  have  these  people  stopped  from  mixing  this  goods 
and  forced  to  make  it  all  cotton  or  all  wool. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Don't  you  believe  that  we  would  have  the  right  to 
come  to  Congress  and  ask  them  to  prohibit  the  manufacturing  of  cot- 
ton goods  and  the  selling  it  as  silk  goods? 

Mr.  SANSOM.  We  believe  in  letting  people  who  are  enterprising  and 
trying  to  produce  something  for  themselves  go  on  and  try  to  produce 
the  best  results.  We  do  not  think  the  position  taken  by  the  people 
who  are  urging  this  bill  here,  asking  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
to  come  to  their  relief — we  do  not  think  the  ground  is  well  taken,  and 
we  think  for  you  to  lend  the  assistance  of  this  Government  to  the  manu- 
facturer of  one  article,  for  the  product  of  one  article,  above  and  to  the 
discrimination  of  another  which  is  equally  pure,  as  we  claim,  from  the 
standpoint  of  our  country  that  furnishes  the  lard  and  tallow  and  the 
oil  that  goes  into  this  product,  is  wrong  and  unjust.  I  do  not  under- 
stand that  the  purity  of  this  food  has  really  been  questioned  at  all,  and 
if  we  have  done  this  we  can  not  see  why  we  should  be  discriminated 
against. 

Mr.  COONEY.  What  is  your  connection  with  the  cattle  business? 

Mr.  SANSOM.  I  raise  cattle  and  feed  cattle  pretty  extensively.  I  am 
what  we  call  a  pretty  large  feeder  in  Texas. 

Mr.  COONEY.  Is  your  business  more  largely  involved  with  the  cattle 
feeding  and  raising  than  with  the  oil  production. 

Mr.  SANSOM.  Yes,  sir;  my  interest  is  much  larger  in  that  business. 
I  am  engaged  in  the  oil  mill  business,  but  my  business  is  much  greater 
and  I  devote  much  more  time  to  raising  and  feeding  cattle  than  to  the 
oil  business. 

Mr.  COONEY.  Eaising  them  on  the  ranch  or  buying  and  selling 
them  ? 

Mr.  SANSOM.  Yes,  sir;  I  own  a  ranch,  and  I  buy  a  great  many  cattle 
which  I  mature  at  these  oil  mills — feed  the  product  of  two  or  three  oil 
mills. 

In  this  connection  I  would  like  to  show  further  that  there  has  been 
a  disposition  from  the  time  we  began  to  manufacture  the  cotton-seed 
products  on  the  part  of  people  we  came  in  contact  with — and  that 
means  the  dairy  people  and  the  Western  people  who  produce  beef — to 
discriminate  and  to  knock  us  out.  They  had  even  gone  so  far  as  to  pro- 
pose at  one  time  that  they  would  condemn  the  beef  fed  on  cotton-seed 
meal.  If  the  beef  business  had  not  been  handled  by  such  strong  hands 
there  is  no  doubt  there  would  have  been  some  such  action  taken.  But 
when  it  came  to  condemning  all  the  beef  fed  on  cotton-seed  meal,  the 
dairy  people  found  that  was  too  strong  for  them. 

Further,  I  would  like  to  refer  to  the  value  of  cotton- seed  meal  as  a 
food  stuff.  I  myself,  as  you  will  see  by  referring  to  the  Breeders 
Gazette,  furnished  beef  fed  on  cotton  seed  meal  to  parties  in  Chicago, 
in  March,  1899,  and  I  have  sold  cattle  in  Chicago  at  25  cents  a  hundred 
above  any  native  steer  on  the  market,  for  more  than  forty  days  after 
the  sale  was  made,  and  ten  or  fifteen  days  before.  In  November,  1899, 
I  sold  cattle  there  as  high  as  $6.75  a  hundred,  which  is  much  higher 
than  the  highest  price  paid  for  natives  at  that  time,  and  they  were  not 
quite  so  well  finished  as  those  I  had  sold  before.  I  mention  this  to  show 
you  the  interest  we  have  in  this  legislation ;  and  whenever  any  legisla- 
tion comes  up  our  interest  is  identical,  except  that  our  interest  in  the 
cattle  is  large.  Every  time  you  take  off  10  cents  from  cotton  seed  in 


OLEOMAKGAKINE.  735 

the  State  of  Texas  yon  reach  and  touch  the  very  poorest  people  we 
have  in  the  State — the  very  poorest  people  who  have  contended  hardest 
for  a  living. 

jSTow,  with  reference  to  the  price  of  the  seed.  When  cotton  was  4J 
cents  a  pound,  and  they  were  selling  it  for  that,  we  were  at  that  time 
paying  as  much  for  seed  as  now.  We  were  helping  these  poor  people 
very  greatly.  If  it  had  not  been  for  the  price  he  was  getting  for  his 
seed,  it  would  have  absolutely  bankrupted  the  tenant. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  At  that  time  the-value  of  the  cotton  seed  was  a  little 
over  a  third  of  the  value  of  the  cotton  itself. 

Mr.  SANSOM.  Yes,  as  high  as  twelve  and  fourteen  dollars  a  ton.  It 
helped  them  out  a  great  deal.  Of  course,  when  you  speak  of  Texas, 
it  is  quite  an  extent  of  country.  The  part  of  Texas  I  represent  has 
no  negroes.  We  never  see  a  negro  there,  except  if  we  have  got  any 
he  is  in  town  shaving  somebody  or  waiting  on  the  table.  They  are 
white  people  there,  and  an  industrious,  hard-working  people,  made  up 
from  every  section  of  the  country  represented  there,  and  they  work  and 
till  their  land.  The  section  I  am  interested  in  is  made  up  of  small 
farmers  owning  from  200  acres  of  land  and  over.  Whenever  you  touch 
the  cotton  crop  you  hurt  them  and  hurt  them  bad.  They  will  find 
another  outlet  for  this  oil,  if  this  business  is  closed  to  their  product. 
The  whole  world  is  using  it,  not  the  United  States  alone,  but  I  do  not 
believe  that  even  Congress  can  tax  it  out  of  existence.  You  may  hurt 
it  for  a  time,  but  you  can  not  down  it. 

They  first  educated  us  abroad  to  use  this  oil.  Our  product  was  used 
before  we  knew  the  value  of  it  at  all  abroad — both  the  meal  product  and 
the  oil  as  well — when  our  own  farmers  at  home,  many  of  them,  did  not 
know  the  value  of  a  sack  of  cotton  seed  meal.  And  they  do  not  know 
it  to  day,  many  of  them.  They  do  not  know  the  value  of  it  as  compared 
with  the  German  farmer  who  never  saw  a  stalk  of  cotton  in  his  life. 
That  being  the  case — these  people  raising  it  and  displaying  it  as  a  cheap 
food — we  are  naturally  jealous  of  any  attempt  to  cut  off  our  market  for 
it.  There  is  a  principle  of  ownership  involved  there — one  section 
against  another.  If  cotton  seed  were  raised  all  over  this  country,  don't 
you  think  it  would  be  a  pretty  hard  matter  to  come  in  here  with  a  bill 
like  this?  There  are  some  people  in  this  country  who  are  opposed  to 
cotton  seed,  and  when  you  find  a  man  like  that  he  is  a  dairyman  every 
time.  And  these  people  come  here  and  call  upon  you  to  help  them 
down  the  other  fellow,  and  then  they  will  be  able  to  make  all  the  money 
they  want.  They  say  "Help  me  down  him,  and  then  I  will  make  all 
the  money  I  want  after  I  get  shut  of  him."  It  is  a  class  legislation  that 
we  do  not  think  is  right. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  understand  that  this  bill  does  not  seek  to  do  away 
with  oleomargarine  altogether,  but  simply  to  prevent  its  being  made 
as  a  counterpart  and  in  imitation  of  butter? 

Mr.  SANSOM.  I  stated  in  my  talk  a  while  ago  that  I  understood  the 
proposition  came  down  to  a  question  of  coloring.  I  believe  I  answered 
that  by  saying  this :  Suppose  you  go  to  work  and  say  that  we  could  not 
color  our  cotton  goods  when  they  are  manufactured,  if  people  like  color 
and  it  does  not  make  it  harmful? 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  I  would  certainly  say  you  would  not  have  a  right  to 
color  it  in  imitation  of  anything  else  and  sell  it  in  imitation  and  for 
that  other  goods. 

Mr.  SANSOM.  We  understand  the  law  protects  you  fully;  that  is, 
the  license  has  to  be  paid  on  it  to  be  sold;  but  the  law  is  violated 

(*153) 


736  OLEOMARGARINE. 

occasionally.  It  is  against  the  law  down  in  our  country  to  steal  a 
horse,  but  they  do  steal  one  occasionally.  Still,  I  would  take  it  that 
in  the  main  the  law  was  enforced. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  If,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  all  the  ingredients  in  oleomar- 
garine are  healthy  and  wholesome  and  it  is  cleanly  made,  is  it  not  true 
that  it  would  recommend  itself  without  being  in  imitation  of  anything 
else? 

Mr.  SANSOM.  That  is  probably  true,  and  you  might  educate  the  peo- 
ple to  eat  white  butterine.  The  same  thing  applies  to  other  articles, 
and  it  might  apply  if  you  took  the  color  out  of  your  dairy  butter.  It  is 
a  matter  of  custom,  largely. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  would  not  maintain  for  a  moment  that  you  would 
have  the  right  to  build  up  a  traffic  in  any  kind  of  product  and  palm  it 
off  on  the  people  as  something  it  was  not? 

Mr.  SANSOM.  No,  sir;  we  do  not  wish  to  do  that,  and  are  not  here 
in  the  interest  of  any  concern  that  we  understand  is  doing  that.  We 
are  here  simply  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  color  on  butter  the  same 
as  we  color  other  kinds  of  goods.  People  do  not  like  white  or  uncolored 
butter.  You  would  not  want  to  come  in  here  with  red  clothes  on, 
because  it  would  be  very  unusual.  We  do  not  want  to  force  people  to 
use  things  that  are  not  fashionable.  We  do  not  want  to  do  that.- 

STATEMENT  OF  MR,  A.  D.  ALLEN,  REPRESENTING  THE  CONSUMERS 
COTTON  OIL  COMPANY,  OF  LITTLE  ROCK,  ARK. 

Mr.  ALLEN.  After  so  much  has  been  said  here,  I  think  it  would  be 
merely  thrashing  over  old  straw  to  add  to  the  discussion.  In  fact,  I 
have  nothing  to  add.  In  our  town  of  Little  Eock  we  have  four  oil 
mills,  representing  a  plant  investment  of  three  quarters  of  a  million  <,f 
dollars,  aod  we  pay  to  the  farmers  perhaps  as  much  more  for  seed  dur- 
ing the  season.  We  employ  between  four  and  five  hundred  men  in  the 
mills,  and  those  men  are  mostly — well,  you  might  say  80  per  cent  of 
them — unskilled  laborers,  negroes,  that  we  employ  in  the  mills,  ranging 
from  $1.15  to  $2  a  day.  Those  people  are  dependent  upon  our  manu- 
factories there  for  a  living,  and  we  get  our  seed  from  the  farmers  around 
us.  It  is  quite  an  industry.  It  is,  I  expect,  the  largest  covered  indus- 
try we  have  in  the  State  of  Arkansas,  and  we  feel  that  we  ought  not  to 
be  oppressed.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  add  anything  to  what  has  been 
said  before,  and  I  thank  you,  gentlemen. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  F.  W.  BRADY,  OF  MEMPHIS,  TENN. 

Mr.  BRADY.  I  can  scarcely  add  anything  to  the  remarks  given  here. 
I  have  come  here  in  the  interest  of  the  committee.  The  ground  has 
been  gone  over  very  fully  here,  and  very  ably  by  Mr.  Aldrich  and  Mr. 
Allison;  1  merely  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  one  fact  which  may 
have  been  lost  sight  of,  the  general  industry  of  the  cotton  seed  product 
in  the  mills,  the  cotton  seed  of  the  whole  South.  I  understand  the 
dairy  interest  is  only  in  five  States  and  I  also  wish  to  say  here  that  the 
South,  I  do  not  believe,  ever  has  come  to  Congress  and  the  Government 
for  any  legislation  in  any  shape,  manner,  or  form.  I  do  not  think  they 
ever  have  asked  protection  for  anything.  This  is  the  only  industry 
they  can  really  call  their  own.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  anything  else 
of  such  magnitude,  and  therefore  I  want  to  call  attention  to  it. 

In  the  fourteen  States  in  the  South,  representing  the  whole  South 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  737 

and  one  or  two  others,  which  represent  the  cotton-seed  industry — four- 
teen States  have  387  mills.  There  are  14  mills  in  Tennessee,  31  in 
Alabama,  22  in  Arkansas,  Florida  has  2,  Georgia  50,  Louisiana  2,  Mis- 
souri 2,  Illinois  2,  Mississippi  5,  North  Carolina  22,  South  Carolina  48, 
Oklahoma  Territory  6  and  the  Indian  Territory  5,  and  the  Great  State 
of  Texas  117.  That  certainly  represents  a  large  territory  and  also  a 
great  deal  of  money  involved,  as  has  already  been  stated  here.  They 
employ,  I  presume,  I  should  say,  about  twenty  to  twenty-five  thousand 
men.  Of  course,  if  that  industry  was  interfered  with  the  loss  would 
not  fall  on  the  rich  mill  owner  but  on  the  farmer,  and  some  of  the  small 
farmers  are  negroes  who  receive  a  portion  of  this  for  their  seed.  As 
has  been  already  stated  here  the  butter  oil  which  is  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  butterine  is  a  small  portion  of  the  general  production.  Still, 
that  helps  the  general  industry,  and  another  point  that  is  to  be  consid- 
ered is  that  the  foreign  countries  will  take  advantage  of  anything  that 
is  passed  to  condemn  the  oil.  In  fact,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  foreign 
countries  first  taught  us  what  it  was.  We  did  not  know. 

Germany  was  a  pioneer  in  this,  and  France  followed,  and  then  the  New 
England  States  took  it  up  and  from  them  the  South  learned  the  value 
of  the  cotton-seed  oil  and  cotton-seed  meal,  and  then  the  value  was 
enhanced  by  foreign  countries.  New  England  and  the  foreign  countries 
taught  us  what  was  the  value  of  all  these  products  of  ours.  Now,  why 
should  it  be  that  these  are  the  very  people  that  are  coming  in  and  try- 
ing to  take  away  from  us  that  value?  That  is  a  question  I  have 
revolved  in  my  mind  from  day  to  day,  Why  should  these  very  States 
be  against  it?  It  seems  absurd  to  me.  It  is  a  wholesome  article  of 
food,  and  if  it  is,  and  furthermore  it  is  a  cheap  one,  it  is  not  alone  the 
producers  who  are  interested  in  this;  far  from  it.  The  consumer  is  also 
interested.  By  the  manufacture  of  this  cotton-seed  industry  we  get 
cheaper  lard,  cheaper  butter  and  better  butter,  and  also  cheaper  and 
better  olive  oil — an  article  used  in  food  from  time  immemorial — and  it 
is  carried  to  every  industry  and  I  do  not  see  why  there  should  be  any 
objection  to  it. 

You  have  here  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Aldrich  as  to  the  other 
articles  used  in  the  manufacture  of  this  product,  and  as  to  their  purity 
and  cleanliness,  and  Mr.  Allison  made  a  statement  as  to  the  purity  and 
cleanliness  of  the  olive  oil.  Those  are  facts  and  there  is  no  question 
about  them  at  all.  1  passed  one  establishment  in  Chicago,  a  slaughter- 
ing establishment,  where  they  used  the  cleanest  water  and  the  cleanest 
handling  of  this  oleo  fat.  They  put  it  in  clean  water,  and  I  made 
inquiries  and  found  it  was  the  purest  water  they  could  obtain  for  that 
purpose;  and  then  they  put  it  in  cold  storage.  The  butter  mea  will 
make  the  same  statement.  I  am  satisfied  that  you  must  be  satisfied  of 
that,  and  another  point  is  made.  We  do  not  say  the  other  article  is 
not  good,  but  we  say  ours  is  good.  The  whole  matter  has  been  over- 
hauled so  much,  and  we  speak  for  the  Southern  industry,  and  I  do  not 
think  it  is  right  and  I  do  not  think  it  will  pass  and  I  think  people  in 
general  are  against  it. 

Fourteen  States  are  producing  this,  and  there  are  only  four  or  five 
States  that  are  interested  in  the  dairy  interests  at  home.  Here  is  a 
statement  I  have  made  up,  showing  the  location  of  each  individual  mill 
of  the  cotton  seed  industry.  However,  it  is  not  complete.  I  merely 
saw  it  lying  on  my  desk  when  I  came  out  of  my  office  and  took  it  up 
without  any  idea  of  turning  it  in  to  the  committee,  and  I  would  like  to 
have  the  privilege  of  revising  it  and  completing  it  before  I  do  so. 


S.  Rep.  2043 47*          (*155) 


738  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  We  would  like  to  get  it  into  the  report  of  the  committee 
and  if  you  will  send  it  to  us  afterwards  we  willbe  much  obliged. 

Mr.  BRADY.  I  will  be  pleased  to  do  so.  There  might  be  some  mills 
left  off  here. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MB.  BOBEBT  GIBSON,  OF  DALLAS,  TEX 

I  have  been  associated  in  and  with  the  cotton-seed  oil  industry  for 
the  past  twenty-three  years,  moving  from  Tennessee  to  Texas  in  1877  to 
build  and  operate  cotton- seed  oil  mills,  and  was  actively  employed  in 
the  management  of  oil  mills  for  some  fifteen  years.  Since  that  time 
I  have  been  more  or  less  interested  in  the  industry.  For  the  past  five 
years  I  have  been  filling  the  position  of  secretary  of  the  Interstate  and 
Texas  Cotton  Seed  Crushers'  Associations. 

My  association  with  the  mills  and  the  two  associations  has  given  me 
a  thorough  insight  into  and  knowledge  of  the  cotton  seed  crushing 
industry,  which  has  increased  from  some  5  or  6  mills  in  1865  to  over 
300  mills  in  1899.  In  the  mills  of  recent  years  over  90  per  cent  of  the 
labor  used  in  these  mills  are  negroes  who  are  paid  from  $1  per  day  to 
as  high  as  $3.50  per  day  for  their  services.  These  milLs,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  some  4  or  5,  are  located  in  the  cotton-growing  States  of  the  South 
and  the  Indian  Territory;  in  my  State,  Texas,  and  the  Indian  Terri- 
tory there  are  some  135  mills,  and  more  being  built  every  year  as  the 
cotton  growing  is  being  developed.  Five  years  ago  there  was  not  a 
cotton-seed  oil  mill  in  the  Indian  Territory ;  to-day  there  are  10  or  12,  and 
every  year  as  the  cotton  average  is  increased,  more  mills  are  built.  The 
same  condition,  too,  exists  as  to  the  increase  in  mills  in  the  old  cotton- 
growing  States.  These  facts  I  give  you  to  show  the  great  injury  you 
would  inflict  on  this  growing  industry  by  the  passage  of  laws  taxing 
one  of  our  principal  products — the  oil,  which  is  largely  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  butterine,  a  pure  and  wholesome  food — which  tax,  if 
placed  as  contemplated  in  pending  bills,  will  cut  off  the  use  of  this  oil 
to  a  great  extent,  and,  in  consequence,  unless  other  uses  can  be  found 
for  it,  must  materially  affect  its  price,  as  well  as  the  profits  of  the  farmer 
who  raises  the  cotton  and  seed  used  in  its  manufacture,  particularly  the 
latter,  which  now  pays  the  farmer  from  $4  to  $5  per  bale  for  all  seed 
sold.  I  beg  further  to  show  you  that  the  injury  to  this  industry  not 
only  affects  the  cotton  growing  States  of  the  South  and  Indian  Terri- 
tory, but  as  well  a  great  many  of  the  Middle  and  Eastern  States  that 
manufacture  the  machinery  used  in  these  oil  mills,  as  well  as  the  manu- 
facture of  the  supplies  used  in  their  manipulation. 

The  three  largest  companies  building  oil  machinery,  and  furnishing 
over  75  per  cent  of  it,  are  located  in  Dayton,  Ohio,  though  there  are 
some  three  others  located  in  Thompsonville,  Conn.,  Richmond,  Va.,  and 
Chattanooga,  Tenu.  The  largest  and  principal  companies  furnishing 
camel's-hair  press  cloth  are  located  in  New  York  and  Massachusetts; 
besides,  there  are  others  located  in  Chicago  and  St.  Louis.  The  manu- 
facturers of  other  parts  of  machinery  used  largely  in  the  construction 
of  oil  mills — in  fact,  almost  all  of  the  machinery  and  supplies  come  from 
the  Middle  and  Eastern  States,  and  I  am  satisfied  that  each  and  every 
concern  engaged  in  said  manufacture  would  join  us  in  our  protest 
against  the  infliction  of  this  unjust  tax. 

In  conclusion,  I  beg  to  say  that  the  members  of  our  two  cotton  seed 
crushing  associations  are  not  confined  alone  to  the  States  operating  oil 
mills,  but  are  composed  as  well  of  members  from  Missouri,  Kentucky, 
Ohio,  Illinois,  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  Connecticut,  Nebraska,  Iowa, 

(*156) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  739 

and  Kansas,  all  of  whom  are  represented  here  to  day  by  the  committee 
composed  of  E.  H.  Ferguson,  of  Louisville,  Ky.;  W.  R.  Cantrell,  New 
York;  George  B.  Alexander,  Greenville,  Miss.;  E.  M.  Durham,  Vicks- 
burg,  Miss.;  E.  Steinhart,  New  Orleans,  La.;  E.  S.  Ready,  Helena,  Ark.; 
W.  H.  Wright,  Pine  Bluff,  Ark. ;  A.  D.  Allen,  Little  Rock,  Ark. ;  P.  W. 
Brode,  Memphis,  Tenn. ;  L.  W.  Haskell,  Savannah,  Ga. ;  Jo.  W.  Allison, 
Ennis,  Tex.;  George  M.  Aldridge,  Dallas. Tex.;  Marion  Sansom,  Alva- 
rado,  Tex.;  A.  P.  McCord,  Cameron,  Tex.,  and  Robert  Gibson,  Dallas, 
Tex.,  who  respectfully  petition  that  your  honorable  body  do  not  pass 
this,  to  us,  unjust  measure. 

Thereupon  the  subcommittee  adjourned. 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  April  17, 1900. 

The  subcommittee  on  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Agriculture  met  at  11.15  a.  m.,  Hon.  Henry  D.  Allen  in  the 
chair. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Hake,  I  understand  that  you  gentlemen  desire 
to  be  heard  this  morning,  and  I  would  like  to  have  you  indicate  which 
one  of  you  would  like  to  be  heard  first. 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  will  make  a  short  statement,  Mr.  Chairman. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  J.  A.  HAKE. 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  am  in  the  live-stock  commission  business  at  South 
Omaha,  Nebr. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  official  position  in  any  organization? 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  am  president  of  that  association  that  we  have  there 
called  the  Live  Stock  Exchange. 

Doubtless  this  committee  has  been  regaled  with  all  the  arguments 
that  acute  and  quick  minds  could  conceive  of  in  the  direction  of  argu- 
ment on  the  question  that  we  think  interests  us.  We  do  not  desire  to 
be  understood  as  being  so  conceited  as  to  believe  that  we  could  change 
the  minds  of  people  who  had  already  made  their  minds  up,  or  convince 
a  man  against  his  will;  but  we  in  the  West  are  engaged  in  stock  grow- 
ing and  beef  making,  and  we  feel  that  these  measures  in  relation  to 
oleomargarine  would  affect  the  value  of  our  products;  and  we  have  a 
little  information  in  relation  to  our  markets  and  our  city  which  we 
would  like  to  present  for  the  consideration  of  the  committee. 

There  being  several  bills  now  pending  before  the  different  committees 
in  Congress  seeking  to  impose  a  tax  on  oleomargarine,  or  manufactured 
butter,  to  such  an  extent  as  to  absolutely  prohibit  its  manufacture  and 
sale,  we  wish  to  say  that  the  result  of  the  passage  of  such  measures 
would  appear  to  be  in  the  interest  of  the  dairy-producing  and  detri- 
mental to  the  meat-producing  sections  of  this  country. 

Coming  as  we  do  from  Nebraska,  one  of  the  largest  meat-producing 
States  among  the  sisterhood  of  States,  and  representing  a  commer- 
cial body — the  South  Omaha  Live  Stock  Exchange — whose  members 
transact  a  daily  bus  ness  the  aggregate  of  which  is  greater  than  any 
corporation,  company,  association,  or  individual  in  the  State,  and  pos- 
sibly greater  than  all  these  combined,  we  have  asked  this  hearing  for 
the  purpose  of  offering  some  information  as  to  the  extent  of  the  live- 
stock industry  in  our  State  and  the  damages  that  would  result  thereto 
should  these  measures  become  a  law. 

(*157) 


7  40  OLEOM  ARG  ABINB. 

South  Omaha  is  the  third  largest  live  stock  market  in  the  world. 

For  the  year  ending  December  31,  1899,  there  were  540,502  cattle 
slaughtered  and,  for  the  same  period,  there  were  slaughtered  2,188,779 
hogs.  The  makers  of  oleomargarine  create  a  demand  for  oleo  oil  which 
is  made  from  the  choice  fats  of  the  beef  and  which  is  worth,  for  butter 
purposes,  10  cents  per  pound.  If  these  choice  fats  were  not  utilized  in 
the  manufacture  of  butter,  they  would  have  to  be  sold  as  tallow,  which 
is  worth  about  5  cents  per  pound.  A  steer  will  yield  forty  to  fifty 
pounds  of  oleo  oil ;  therefore,  should  the  butterine  industry  be  destroyed, 
each  steer  would  depreciate  in  value  at  least  $2.  Now,  the  same  is 
true  of  hogs.  Leaf  lard,  or  neutral,  being  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
butterine,  is  worth  8  to  9  cents  per  pound;  lard  is  worth  about  6  cents; 
a  hog  will  yield  about  8  pounds  of  neutral,  and  if  there  was  no 
demand  for  neutral  as  a  butterine  ingredient,  it  would  have  no  greater 
value  than  ordinary  lard;  hence  each  hog  would  be  worth  about  20 
cents  per  head  less  than  present  price.  Upon  this  basis  the  loss  to 
the  producers  of  cattle  and  hogs  during  1899  in  South  Omaha  alone 
would  be — 

On  540,502  cattle,  at  $2 $1,081,004.00 

On  2,188,779  hogs  at,  20  cents 437,755.80 

Total 1,518,759.80 

The  total  number  of  beef  cattle  and  hogs  in  the  United  States  is  a 
matter  of  stati  tics,  which  has  doubtless  been  presented  for  your  con- 
sideration, or,  if  not,  can  be  easily  obtained. 

The  probable  loss  to  the  beef  producers  of  this  country,  should  this 
measure  become  a  law,  has  been  estimated  by  different  persons  to 
be  about  $100,000,000,  to  say  nothing  of  the  confiscation  of  about 
$15,000,000  invested  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  and  butter- 
ine and  the  loss  of  employment  to  about  25,000  men. 

The  butterine  business  of  1890  was  2.6  per  cent  of  the  total  amount 
of  butter  made  in  the  United  States.  These  figures  are  taken  from  the 
records  of  the  Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue  and  the  Agricultural  Depart- 
ment. For  the  year  ending  June  30, 189U,  there  were  83,000,000  pounds 
of  butterine  manufactured  in  the  United  States,  and,  according  to  the 
estimate  of  Mr.  Wilson,  editor  of  the  Elgin  Dairy  Eeport,  Elgin,  111., 
there  were  something  over  3,000,000,000  pounds  of  butter  made  in  the 
United  States  for  that  year.  Figuring  on  this  basis,  the  amount  of 
butterine  manufactured  as  compared  with  the  amount  of  butter  made 
is  2J  per  cent,  showing  that  the  make  of  butterine  has  decreased,  in 
comparison  to  the  make  of  butter,  in  the  past  ten  years  to  the  extent  of 
one  tenth  of  1  per  cent.  The  Government  received,  for  the  year  ending 
June  30,  1899,  about  $2,000,000  from  tax  and  license  on  butteriue. 

From  experience  it  has  been  proven  that  uncolored  butterine  is  unsala- 
ble; therefore,  if  the  proposed  legislation  in  Washington  should  become 
a  law,  it  would  practically  kill  the  butteriue  business. 

There  are  in  the  United  States  about  44,000,000  cattle,  one-third  of 
which  are  milch  cows,  the  other  two  thirds  being  meat  products.  In 
legislating  for  the  cattle  industry,  it  would  hardly  be  fair  to  protect 
and  foster  the  small  minority  of  one  third  against  the  large  majority  of 
two  thirds. 

That  is,  being  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  cattle  or  beef 
products,  while  one-third  are  dairy -producing  products. 

While  Nebraska  is  chiefly  a  meat  producing  State,  we  also  have  more 
or  less,  dairy  interests  and  we  know  of  no  conflict  between  the  two 

(*158) 


OLEOMARGAKINE.  741 

industries,  the  dairymen  finding  a  market  for  all  the  produce  they  can 
make  without  unfavorable  legislation  to  the  meat  industry. 

Oleomargarine,  or  butterine,  is  a  wholesome  and  absolutely  pure 
article  of  diet,  manufactured  and  sold  at  about  one-half  the  price  of 
creamery  or  dairy  butter,  and  is  very  desirable  for  and  largely  used 
by  laboring  classes  and,  in  fact,  all  of  frugal  habits  and  moderate 
means. 

I  desire  to  read  in  this  connection,  as  a  part  of  my  remarks,  the 
memorial  to  Congress  that  was  passed  by  our  exchange  last  winter. 
Possibly  it  is  on  file  here  with  the  committee  already,  but  I  would  like 
to  read  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  would  like  to  read  it,  do  so. 

Mr.  HAKE  (reading) : 

We  beg  to  represent  that  our  organization  has  a  membership  of  over  200  men,  all 
of  whom  are  engaged  in  handling  live  stock  in  some  form,  and  are  well  acquainted 
with  the  subject  and  do  enter  a  most  earnest  and  emphatic  protest  against  said  leg- 
islation of  this  character  because : 

First.  "  The  consumers  at  the  table,"  in  whose  interest  the  enactment  is  proposed, 
are  in  no  need  of  such  protection.  It  is  probable  that  many  legislatures  favor  these 
bills  under  the  belief  that  butterine,  etc.,  are  composed  of  impure  materials,  com- 
pounded in  filthy  establishments,  and  foisted  upon  an  innocent  and  unsuspecting 
public  through  deceptive  and  fraudulent  methods.  A  brief  investigation  will  con- 
vince them  of  their  mistake.  The  mo.st  eminent  chemists  of  the  world  pronounce 
butterine  and  oleomargarine  substantially  the  same  as  natural  butter,  differing  from 
it  only  in  the  lack  of  butyric  acid,  which  produces  rancidity  in  the  natural  article. 
England,  the  foremost  among  nations  in  the  passing  of  stringent  laws  for  the  pro- 
tection of  her  citizens  against  impure  food  products,  indorsed  butterine  aud  oleo- 
margarine, and  encourages  their  production  and  sale  because  of  their  wholesouieness 
and  cheapness.  Our  own  Government,  likewise,  sanctions  their  production  and  use, 
and  protects  the  consumer  bj*  having  every  pound  made  and  sold  under  the  strictest 
supervision  of  the  department  of  internal  revenue.  The  materials  and  processes 
are  as  well  known  as  those  which  produce  flour,  lard,  sugar,  or  any  other  necessary 
staple  of  life.  Butterine  factories  are  noted  for  the  scrupulous  care  and  cleanliness 
shown  in  every  detail,  and  are  always  open  for  the  inspection  of  visitors,  thus  effec- 
tually disproving  the  malicious  falsehoods  uttered  regarding  secret  methods,  impure 
ingredients,  harmful  chemicals,  etc.  They  court  the  closest  and  most  thorough 
investigation,  and  challenge  any  advocate  of  these  bills  to  prove  that  such  laws  are 
needed  for  or  will  benefit  the  health  of  a  single  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

Second.  Since  the  introduction  of  butterine  and  oleomargarine  the  prices  of  the  leaf 
fats,  from  which  they  are  chiefly  made,  have  relatively  increased  2£  to  3  cents  per 
pound,  thus  adding  millions  of  dollars  annually  to  the  value  of  the  cattle  and  hog 
products  of  the  United  States.  If  this  prohibition  scheme  is  carried  out,  stock 
raisers  of  the  United  States  will  lose  each  year  this  vast  sum  of  money. 

Third.  If  such  legislation  is  enacted,  it  will  decrease  the  worth  of  the  live  stock 
of  the  country  by  many  millions  of  dollars.  It  will  also  deprive  the  National  Gov- 
ernment of  a  revenue  now  reaching  $2,000,000  annually  and  steadily  increasing. 
This  loss  would  have  to  be  replaced  by  taxation  elsewhere,  a  portion  of  which  would 
fall  upon  our  own  people. 

Fourth.  It  is  clear  from  the  foregoing  facts  (everyone  of  which  can  be  substan- 
tiated by  undoubted  testimony)  that  the  proposed  laws  are  not  in  the  interests  of 
the  people  generally,  nor  of  the  State,  nor  of  the  nation.  They  must  therefore  be 
intended  to  benefit  certain  selfish  and  designing  individuals  who  hope,  by  creating 
popular  prejudices  against  butterine,  to  stop  its  manufacture  and  again  open  the 
way  for  those  vile  butter-mixing  establishments  which  formerly  abounded  in  every 
city  and  town,  whose  concoctions  and  compounds  are  as  far  inferior  to  butterine  in 
purity,  healthfuluess,  and  cleanliness  as  a  bucking  broncho  to  a  Nebraska  thorough- 
bred. Butterine,  with  its  uniformly  good  qualities,  drove  these  mixtures  from  the 
field,  and  they  have  ever  since  been  moving  heaven  and  earth  to  regain  their  lost 
position  and  once  more  enjoy  the  enormous  profits  arising  from  their  nefarious  work. 
They  have  craftily  enlisted  on  their  side  honest  dairy  farmers  and  creameries  whom 
they  have  temporarily  won  by  false  statements  and  fallacious  arguments.  To  these 
latter  we  beg  to  say  there  is  no  real  conflict  between  the  honest  butter  producers 
and  the  makers  of  butterine.  A  large  portion  of  the  people  will  buy  natural  at 
almost  any  price,  if  they  can  always  procure  it  of  first-class  quality.  By  making 
nothing  but  the  best  grades,  the  dairies  will  always  have  a  ready  market  at  full 
prices,  thereby  leaving  butterine  to  supply  those  content  with  a  wholesome,  health- 
ful, and  cheap  substitute. 

(*159) 


742  OLEOMARGARINE. 

We  hope  these  brief  statements  will  convince  you  that  the  l>ill  in  question  is 
purely  "class  legislation,"  which  is  always  vicious  in  tendency  and  contrary  to  the 
principles  of  a  republican  form  of  government,  which  seeks  "the  greatest  good  to 
the  greatest  number." 

I  have  here  a  few  letters  which  I  have  obtained  very  easily,  and  very 
quickly.  I  would  like  to  read  them.  They  come  from  the  farmers  and 
producers  of  stock  throughout  the  State.  Here  is  a  letter  signed  by 
S.  S.  Hadley,  of  Cedar  Rapids,  Nebr. : 

To  NEBRASKA  DELEGATION  IN  CONGRESS: 

Congress  is  now  considering  a  measure  contemplating  the  taxing  of  oleo  oils- 
oleomargarine  and  butterine— 10  cents  per  pound. 

As  these  products  are  manufactured  from  the  oils  extracted  from  the  fats  of  cattle, 
hogs,  and  sheep,  the  animal  of  right  should  be  and  is  worth  from  $1  to  $3  per  head 
more,  where  the  product  can  be  manufactured  into  a  valuable  article,  than  when 
used  as  ordinary  tallow  and  lard. 

I  believe  the  passage  of  such  a  measure  would  be  legislating  in  the  interest  of  a 
very  small  minority  and  not  in  the  interest  of  the  masses. 

Oleomargarine  or  butterine,  being  absolutely  pure  and  wholesome  and  furnished 
the  consumer  at  about  half  price  of  creamery  butter,  is  a  very  desirable  commodity 
for  the  laboring  classes,  and  in  fact  all  people  of  frugal  habits  and  moderate  means; 
and  the  tax  practically  prohibits  its  manufacture. 

I  am  engaged  in  producing,  shipping,  buying,  and  selling  meat  and  fat  producing 
animals  and  am  interested  as  much  and  more  than  the  dairyman  can  possibly  be  in 
the  product  of  the  dairy. 

I  therefore  desire  to  enter  my  earnest  protest  against  the  passage  of  any  such 
measure,  and  ask  your  earnest  cooperation  in  defeating  House  bill  No.  6. 

S.  S.  HADLEY, 

Cedar  Rapids,  Nebr. 

Here  is  one  signed  by  B.  J,  Tierney,  of  Ansley,  Nebr.,  which  reads 
as  follows: 

ANSLEY,  NEBR.,  April  IS,  1900. 
J.  A.  HAKE,  Esq., 

South  Omaha,  Nebr. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  understand  that  a  committee  from  the  South  Omaha  Exchange  will 
visit  Washington,  D.  C.,  in  the  near  future  for  the  purpose  of  discouraging  the 
passage  of  House  bill  No.  6,  regarding  the  manufacturing  of  butterine  and  oleomar 
garines,  and  I  trust  you  may  be  successful,  for  in  my  opinion  the  passage  of  such  a 
bill  would  be  against  the  interests  and  highly  detrimental  to  farmers  and  all  grow- 
ers of  stock,  inasmuch  as  the  effect  would  be  to  limit  the  use  of  all  animal  fats  and 
oils. 

This  section  is  practically  an  agricultural  and  farming  region,  bnt  I  am  shipping 
from  Ansley  annually  about  1,000  head  of  cattle  and  from  nine  to  ten  thousand 
head  of  hogs,  and  I  estimate  that  if  the  proposed  bill  should  become  a  law  it  would 
diminish  the  aggregate  value  of  the  stock  shipped  from  this  place  alone  from  $4,000 
to  $6,000,  all  of  which  must  of  necessity  fall  on  the  grower. 

Sincerely  believing  that  the  best  interests  of  the  small  farmer  and  stock  growers 
will  be  promoted  by  the  defeat  of  the  proposed  measure,  I  am, 
Yours,  truly, 

B.  J.  TIERNEY. 

Here  is  one,  dated  Lewellen,  Nebr.,  April  10.  That  is  in  your  dis- 
trict, Mr.  Neville? 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Yes,  sir.    That  is  from  Mr.  Delatour,  isn't  it? 
Mr.  HAKE.  Yes,  sir.    Mr.  Delatour's  letter  reads  as  follows : 

LEWELLEN,  NEBR.,  April  10,  1900. 
J.  A.  HAKE,  Esq., 

President  South  Omaha  Live  Stock  Exchange. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  trust  the  South  Omaha  Livestock  Exchange  will  take  an  active  part 
in  trying  to  defeat  House  bill  No.  6,  which  contemplates  a  tax  of  10  cents  a,  pound  on 
manufactured  butter,  butterine,  or  oleomargarine.  The  increase  of  the  tax  will  pro- 
hibit the  manufacturing  and  sale  of  said  articles.  The  enactment  of  this  law  will 
reduce  the  value  of  our  stock  from  $1  to  $2  per  head.  The  law  as  itnow  stands  seem* 
to  be  liberal  to  the  dairy  interest  and  it  should  not  clamour  for  any  more  legislation, 
and  especially  for  legislation  that  will  result  in  great  damage  and  loss  to  another 
legitimate  industry. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  8.  P.  DKLATOUB. 

(*160)   . 


OLEOMABGARINE.  743 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  is  Mr.  S.  P.  Delatour?   What  is  his  occupation! 

Mr.  HAKE.  He  is  a  grower  of  stock  and  is  outside  of  the  agricultural 
districts.  They  raise  very  little  crops  in  his  di  strict — raise  some  corn  and 
some  alfalfa,  but  he  is  practically  a  range  man. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  He  is  one  of  the  brand  commissioners  of  the  State  of 
Nebraska. 

Mr.  HAKE.  This  letter  of  Mr.  Tierney  and  those  of  the  others  go  to 
show  who  they  are.  Here  is  a  letter  from  Mr.  T.  B.  Hord : 

CENTRAL  CITY,  NEBR.,  April  7, 1900. 
The  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  STATE  OP  NEBRASKA, 

The  Senate  and  the  House  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN  :  Being  largely  interested  in  the  production  and  maturing  of  cattle, 
hogs,  and  sheep  in  the  State  of  Nebraska,  I  feel  it  to  be  a  great  injustice  to  not  only 
myself  but  to  producers  at  large  to  have  the  present  oleomargarine  bill  now  pend- 
ing in  Congress;  if  passed,  would  positively  prohibit  the  manufacture  of  oleomarga- 
rine or  butterine,  for  which  the  butter  fats  of  the  cattle,  hogs,  and  sheep  is  used. 

Last  year  I  matured  and  disposed  of  17,000  cattle,  12,000  hogs,  and  12,000  sheep. 
It  means  $2  a  head  on  each  head  of  cattle  matured,  50  cents  on  each  hog,  and  25  cents 
on  each  sheep,  amounting  to  $43,000.  We  are  practically  feeding  the  same  numbers 
this  year. 

Such  a  reduction  last  year  would  have  shown  a  loss  in  our  business  and  this  year 
a  much  greater  one,  and  we  sincerely  hope  that  you  will  use  your  best  endeavors  to 
defeat  said  bill. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  T.  B.  HORD. 

T.  B.  Hord  is  a  grower  of  cattle  on  the  ranges  and  a  feeder  in  the 
agricultural  districts.  He  moves  them  down  from  the  ranges  and  feeds 
them  on  corn  and  prepares  them  for  the  market. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Eegardiug  the  way  he  expresses  it  there,  do  you  regard 
it  as  a  fair  statement  as  to  the  amount  of  difference  it  would  make  on 
the  value  of  hogs,  cattle,  and  sheep  ?  That  does  not  agree  with  your 
claim,  as  I  understand  it. 

Mr.  HAKE.  Practically  it  does  on  cattle. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  It  does  on  cattle? 

Mr.  HAKE.  That  question 

Mr.  DAHLE.  How  about  hogs? 

Mr.  HAKE.  Twenty  cents;  of  course 

Mr.  DAHLE.  You  figure  about  20  cents? 

Mr.  HAKE.  Yes,  sir.    He  has  estimated  50  cents. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  How  about  sheep? 

Mr.  HAKE.  Sheep  hardly  enter  into  the  business  that  he  does.  Of 
course  he  does  not  understand  much  about  that. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  He  does  not  understand  it? 

Mr.  HAKE.  This  letter  is  gotten  up  and  written  by  himself,  you 
understand. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Does  it  appear  that  he  does  understand  it  from  that? 

Mr.  HAKE.  He  understands  that  the  fat  out  of  a  certain  animal,  and 
to  a  certain  amount,  and  of  a  certain  variety  goes  into  these  oleo  oils, 
and  he  takes  it  that  the  sheep,  knowing  them  to  be  tallow  producers 
the  same  as  the  cattle,  that  the  tallow  of  these  sheep  would  enter  into 
it  the  same. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  But  it  does  show  that  he  does  not  know  anything  about  it? 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  do  not  think  that  he  fully  understands  that. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  He  does  not  understand  that  fully? 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  think  it  shows  a  larger  estimate  than  the  absolute  facts 
would  warrant. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  suggest  that  there  are  two  or  three  of  these 
gentlemen,  and  we  had  better  let  them  be  heard  and  then  ask  them 
questions. 

(161) 


744  OLEOMABGABINE. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Very  well. 

Mr.  HAKE.  Here  is  a  letter  from  the  feeding  station  of  the  Standard 
Cattle  Company.  It  is  as  follows : 

STANDARD  BATTLE  COMPANY, 
OFFICE  OF  THE  GENERAL  MANAGER, 

Ames,  Nebr.,  April  llt  2900. 
Mr.  J.  A.  HAKE, 

Union  Stock  Yards,  South  Omaha,  Nebr. 

DEAR  SIR:  Answering  yours  of  the  17th  instant,  we  have  fed  about  65,000  cattle 
here  the  last  fourteen  years  and  are  largely  interested  in  the  cattle  business,  as  you 
know.  We  do  not  attempt  a  very  large  business  in  hogs.  We  generally  have  about 
2,500  on  hand;  less  than  this  now  because  of  cholera  last  year. 

1  certainly  do  not  approve  of  the  bill  to  tax  oleomargarine  products  10  cents  per 
pound  and  think  it  to  be  an  unjustifiable  thing  to  do.  I  think  they  should  be  sold 
as  oleomargarine  products  and  a  heavy  penalty  exacted, for  noncompliance  of  the 
law,  and  the  only  doubt  I  have  in  the  matter  is  whether  it  is  practicable  or  not  to 
detect  their  being  placed  on  sale  as  butter. 

Yours,  truly,  R.  M.  ALLEN,  General  Manager. 

Mr.  Allen  is  the  manager  of  the  Standard  Cattle  Company,  and  he 
has  four  or  five  thousand  cattle  a  year.  They  used  to  feed  3,000,  but 
have  increased  their  feeding  very  much  lately. 

Here  is  another  letter: 

GRAND  ISLAND,  NEBR.,  April  10, 1900. 
J.  A.  HAKE,  Esq., 

President  South  Omaha  Live  Stock  Exchange,  South  Omaha,  Nebr. 

DEAR  SIR  :  In  answer  to  your  letter  regarding  the  House  roll  No.  6  my  views  agree 
with  those  of  the  Live  Stock  Exchange. 

As  long  as  the  manufactured  butter  is  a  healthy  product,  and  not  being  prohibited 
by  our  Government  to  be  put  in  the  market,  it  surely  is  a  wrongful  move  of  Congress 
to  the  stock  men  of  United  States  to  put  a  tax  on  this  product,  decreasing  the  value 
of  their  stock. 

It  looks  to  me  that  if  Congress  passed  such  a  law  they  would  be  making  a  class 
legislation  of  it,  favoring  their  citizens  engaged  in  the  creamery  business  and  dam- 
aging their  citizens  engaged  in  the  stock  business.  As  we  are  all  citizens  of  United 
States,  it  surely  is  wrong  to  tax  one  to  protect  the  other. 

I  therefore  herewith  express  my  sincere  hope  that  your  committee  will  be  suc- 
cessful in  defeating  such  law. 

Very  respectfully,  JOHN  REIMERS. 

Here  is  a  letter  from  Mr.  N.  L.  Anderson,  of  Sacramento: 

SACRAMENTO,  NEBR.,  April  7, 1900. 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  desire  to  enter  an  earnest  protest  against  the  passage  of  a  bill  now 
pending  in  Congress  which  seeks  to  tax  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  so  high 
as  to  prohibit  its  manufacture.  As  you  know,  I  am  a  large  feeder  of  cattle  in 
Nebraska  (running  from  500  to  1,000  head  every  year).  My  beef  cattle  bring  $2 
more  per  head  than  they  would  if  the  oleomargarine  product  in  them  could  not  be 
used  for  butter. 

I  am  reliably  informed  that  butter  so  manufactured  is  equal  in  every  respect  to 
dairy  butter  and  sells  for  considerably  less  money  in  the  market.    I  also  think  that 
the  passage  of  such  a  law  would  be  class  legislation  and  against  the  best  interests 
of  the  producers  of  beef  cattle  and  the  consumers  of  butter. 
Yours,  truly, 

N.  L.  ANDERSON. 
The  NEBRASKA  REPRESENTATIVES  IN  CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Anderson  owns  about  a  section  and  a  half  of  land,  on  which  he 
raises  corn  largely  and  feeds  the  products  to  cattle. 

The  letter  I  am  about  to  read  here — I  presume  you  have  something 
of  this  kind,  but  this  is  a  little  extravagant,  gentlemen,  I  will  admit, 
but  I  read  it: 

SIDNEY,  NEBR.,  April  9, 1900* 
The  NEBRASKA  DELEGATION  IN  CONGRESS. 

GENTLEMEN  :  A  resident  of  Nebraska  for  nearly  thirty  years,  I  have  noted,  as  you 
have,  its  rapid  development  in  wealth.  My  observation  and  experience  has  con- 
vinced me  the  greatest  factor  in  creating  its  wealth  has  been  its  live-stock  industry. 

(•162) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  745 

Cattle  raising  was  its  first  attempt;  then  came  feeding  and  fattening  for  market. 
Hog  raising  became  a  great  factor  at  once,  and  sheep  raising  and  sheep  feeding  rap- 
idly followed.  So  that  Nebraska  is  preeminently  a  stock  State.  I  am  amazed  that 
there  should  be  anyone  who  may  be  interested  in  House  roll  No.  6  indulging  the 
hope  that  a  single  member  of  the  Nebraska  delegation  will  support  it.  The  loss  to 
the  Nebraska  live-stock  interest  would  be  severe  by  its  passage. 

We  had  in  1898  in  the  State  716,017  cattle,  2,339,086  hogs,  1,193,250  head  of  sheep. 
The  loss  on  sheep  and  swine  if  this  bill  becomes  a  law  will  be  $1  per  head,  or  a  total 
loss  in  these  two  classes  of  stock  of  $3,532,336.  The  loss  on  cattle  will  be  from  $3  to 
$5  per  head ;  at  a  minimum  of  $3  per  head  the  loss  to  cattle  in  this  State  would  equal 
$2,148,051,  or  a  total  loss  on  cattle,  hogs,  and  sheep,  in  Nebraska  of  $5,680,387.  The 
loss  on  this  same  basis  in  the  nation  holds  a  ratio  even  greater  than  in  Nebraska. 
In  1897  there  were  in  the  United  States  15,941,727  head  of  milch  cows,  of  other  cattle 
there  were  30.508,408,  of  sheep  there  were  36,818,643,  of  swine  there  were  40,600,276, 
which  by  the  passage  of  this  bill  would  represent  a  lost  value  of  the  enormous  sum 
of  $168,944,141  on  these  three  classes  of  live  stock.  This  great  loss  to  be  consum- 
mated by  the  passage  of  this  bill  for  what  purpose?  Simply  to  enhance  the  price  of 
butter,  the  product  of  15,941,727  milch  cows. 

We  understand,  of  course,  the  plea  for  the  bill  is  pure  butter.  A  certain  per  cent 
of  pure  butter  will  be  made,  but  a  large  per  cent,  as  is  the  custom  now  with  cream- 
eries, will  be  old  refuse  gathered  up  in  the  stores,  reeking  with  tilth,  washed  in  the 
fresh  buttermilk  of  the  creamery,  worked  over  and  labeled  second  creamery,  and  of 
course  will  be  sold  as  pure  and  at  a  price  beyond  the  reach  of  thousands  of  poor 
people  in  our  large  cities  who  are  glad  to  get  pure,  wholesome  batterine  at  a  price 
within  their  means.  The  passage  of  this  bill  means  the  poor  eating  no  butter. 

Gentlemen,  for  these  reasons  I  urge  you  all  as  Nebraskans  to  oppose  this  bill. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

MATT.  DADGHERTY. 

Here  is  another  one,  signed  by  Col.  F.  M.  Woods,  and  another  by 
George  Harvey,  and  another  by  A.  M.  Treat,  of  Chappell,  Nebr.  Some 
of  these  letters,  the  last  two,  for  instance,  are  from  Mr.  Neville's  district. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Matt.  Daugherty  is  from  my  district. 

Mr.  HAKE.  Yes;  Chappell  is  in  your  district. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Yes;  Delatour  is  from  my  district,  and  Tierney.  He 
is  at  Ansley. 

Mr.  HAKE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  gentlemen  of  the  committee  who 
desire  to  ask  Mr.  Hake  any  questions? 

Mr.  DAHLE.  When  you  were  saying  or  figuring  that  oleomargarine 
costs  about  half  what  butter  costs — you  advanced  that  idea? 

Mr.  HAKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  At  what  prices  do  you  figure  the  two,  respectively? 

Mr.  HAKE.  Fifteen  to  thirty  cents.  Fifteen  to  thirty  cents  for  cream- 
ery. It  costs  25  to  30  cents  with  us,  but  that  is  in  our  country,  you 
understand.  I  presume  it  might  not  cost  as  much  in  other  places.  It 
costs  from  15  to  25  cents,  and  we  rarely  buy  it  for  less  than  25  ceuts, 
and  sometimes  pay  30. 

Mr.  CHEEK.  Creamery  has  been  as  high  as  32  cents. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  You  figure  creamery  from  22  to  35  cents? 

Mr.  HAKE.  Twenty- two  to  thirty  cents. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  And  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  HAKE.  It  has  been  13  to  15  cents. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  1  can  only  say  that  that  is  away  too  high. 

Mr.  HAKE.  How? 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Butter  in  the  summer  is  worth  with  us  16  cents,  that  is 
creamery  butter. 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  have  never  bought  it  that  way. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Well,  I  have  sold  lots  of  it  that  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  be  argument,  Mr.  Dahle. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Yes,  I  know;  but  I  am  sorry  that  we  get  into  our  records 
things  that  look  away  off.  I  would  like  to  correct  them. 

(*163) 


746  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  These  figures,  yon  do  not  intend  to  say  that  they  are 
technically  true.  The  general  impression  and  belief  of  the  cattlemen 
in  your  country  is  that  the  killing  of  this  industry  must  materially 
affect  the  cattle  and  stock  interests  of  the  Northwest,  and  the  whole 
country. 

Mr.  HAKE.  Yes,  that  is  it. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  As  regards  technical  knowledge,  you  do  not  pretend  to 
have  absolute  technical  knowledge? 

Mr.  HAKE.  No,  sir,  and  it  varies;  it  varies  with  the  seasons — the 
price  of  the  product  of  cattle  and  the  price  of  hogs.  Again,  with  hogs 
or  sheep  the  product  is  not  as  high,  and  we  could  not  make  an  arbitrary 
figure  that  would  cover  all  this. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  There  was  about  4,000,000  pounds  sold  in  Nebraska 
last  year. 

Mr.  HAKE.  Yes;  sir. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  As  I  understand  the  statistics,  between  three  and  four 
millions.  And  it  was  sold  at  as  low  as  15  cents  a  pound — oleomar- 
garine. 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  think  so.    I  never  bought  any  of  it. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Was  it  colored? 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  think  it  was,  yes.    I  never  saw  any  of  it. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  In  imitation  of  butter? 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  think  it  was  colored.    I  know  it  is  colored. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Now,  is  it  not  true  that  there  is  a  law  in  Nebraska 
which  prohibits  this  coloring  of  butter? 

Mr.  HAKE.  There  is  a  law  which  prohibits  its  sale,  and  permitting  it 
to  be  manufactured  and  shipped  to  other  States.  Under  the  interstate- 
commerce  regulations  other  States  enjoy  the  same  privileges  and  we 
simply  deprive  our  citizens  of  the  privilege  of  manufacturing  it.  But 
the  other  States  manufacture  it  and  ship  it  to  us.  That  is  the  result. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Any  State  may  send  out  what  it  manufactures 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Yes ;  sir. 

Mr.  DAHLE  (continuing).  But  under  the  law  of  Nebraska  it  is  pro- 
hibited? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  suggest  that  that  matter  of  the  law  will 
speak  for  itself. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  My  question  was  intended  to  bring  out  a  fact  with 
reierence  to  it.  He  was  simply  quoting  the  prices  and  the  difference 
in  prices  between  butter  and  oleomargarine.  I  simply  wanted  to  show 
that  all  of  it  sold  there  is  in  violation  of  the  law,  and  the  plea  is  that 
it  must  be  continued  to  be  sold  in  violation  of  law. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  go  over  that  matter  in  the  committee. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  These  people  who  have  written  letters  here,  how  were 
they  notified  as  to  the  contents  of  this  bill? 

Mr.  HAKE.  It  has  been  a  matter  of  consideration  with  our  people, 
and  has  been  agitated. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  You  sent  some  communications? 

Mr.  HAKE.  Yes;  we  have  gotten  the  business  up. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  I  notice  that  in  each  one  of  these  letters — I  have 
received  letters  from  one  of  these  gentlemen  you  refer  to,  and  also  from 
John  Bradt.  You  know  him? 

Mr.  HAKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEVILLE  (continuing).  And  1  notice  that  in  these  letters  I  have 
received,  and  also  those  you  have  read  here,  they  simply  speak  of  this 
as  a  tax  upon  oleomargarine  of  10  cents. 

Mr.  HAKE.  Ten  cents  a  pound? 

(*164) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


747 


Mr.  KEVILLE.  Yes,  10  cents  a  pound  I  mean.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
your  organization  simply  knew  that  it  was  proposed  to  tax  it  when  in 
imitation  of  butter? 

Mr.  HAKE.  Yes,  the  framer  of  that  bill  knew  that  it  was  absolutely 
impossible  to  make  lard  and  sell  it  for  butter. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Did  Mr.  Delatour  and  Mr.  Tierney  know  this? 

Mr.  HAKE.  Yes,  they  knew  it,  and  we  have  known  that  the  committee 
only  meant  to  tax  oleomargarine  the  10  cents  a  pound  when  it  was 
colored  in  imitation  of  butter. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  They  knew  that? 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  should  say  they  did.  They  are  intelligent  people,  all  of 
them,  and  no  doubt  knew  it. 

The  letters  of  Mr.  Woods,  Mr.  Harvey,  and  Mr.  Treat,  submitted  by 
Mr.  Hake,  are  as  follows : 

SOUTH  OMAHA  LIVE  STOCK  EXCHANGE, 

South  Omaha,  Nebr.,  April  7,  1900. 
The  NEBRASKA  DELEGATION  IN  CONGRESS: 

Our  National  Legislature  is  now  considering  a  measure  contemplating  the  taxing 
of  oleo  oils,  oleomargarine,  or  butterine  to  the  amount  of  10  cents  per  pound.  As 
these  products  are  manufactured  from  the  oils  extracted  from  the  fats  of  cattle, 
hogs,  and  sheep,  the  animal  of  right  should  be,  and  is,  worth  from  $1  to  $3  per  head 
more  where  the  product  ean  be  manufactured  into  a  valuable  article  than  when 
used  as  ordinary  tallow  and  lard.  I  believe  the  passage  of  such  a  measure  would 
be  legislating  in  the  interest  of  a  very  small  minority  and  not  in  the  interest  of 
the  masses. 

Oleomargarine  or  butterine,  being  absolutely  pure  and  wholesome,  and  furnished 
tie  consumer  at  about  half  the  price  of  creamery  butter,  is  a  very  desirable  com- 
modity for  the  laboring  masses,  and,  in  fact,  all  people  of  moderate  means.  As  this 
tax  practically  prohibits  its  manufacture,  I  desire  to  enter  my  earnest  protest 
against  the  passage  of  any  such  measure.  Having  been  engaged  in  the  live  stock 
industry  all  of  my  life,  selling  somewhere  near  10,000  head  annually,  I  ask  your 
cooperation  in  defeating  House  bill  No.  6. 

F.  M.  WOODS,  Auctioneer. 


To  NEBRASKA  DELEGATION  IN  CONGRESS: 

Congress  is  now  considering  a  measure  contemplating  the  taxing  of  oleo  oils,  oleo- 
margarine, and  butterine  10  cents  per  pound. 

As  these  products  are  manufactured  from  the  oils  extracted  from  the  fats  of  cattle, 
hogs,  and  sheep,  the  animal  of  right  should  be,  and  is,  worth  from  $1  to  $3  per  head 
more  where  the  product  can  be  manufactured  into  a  valuable  article  than  when 
used  as  ordinary  tallow  and  lard. 

I  believe  the  passage  of  such  a  measure  would  be  legislating  in  the  interest  of  a 
very  small  minority  and  not  in  the  interest  of  the  masses. 

Oleomargarine  or  butterine,  being  absolutely  pure  and  wholesome,  and  furnished 
the  consumer  at  about  half  price  of  creamery  butter,  is  a  very  desirable  commodity 
for  the  laboring  classes,  and,  in  fact,  all  people  of  frugal  habits  and  moderate  means, 
and  the  tax  practically  prohibits  its  manufacture. 

I  am  engaged  in  producing,  shipping,  buying,  and  selling  meat  and  fat-producing 
animals,  and  am  interested  as  much  and  more  in  their  value  than  the  dairyman  can 
possibly  be  in  the  product  of  the  dairy. 

I  therefore  desire  to  enter  my  earnest  protest  against  the  passage  of  any  such 
measure,  and  ask  your  earnest  cooperation  in  defeating  House  bill  No.  6. 

GEO.  HARVEY, 
Kearney,  Buffalo  County,  Nebr. 

APRIL  11, 1900. 

CHAPPELL,  NEBR.,  April  10, 1900. 
To  NEBRASKA  DELEGATION  IN  CONGRESS  : 

Our  National  Legislature  is  now  considering  a  measure  contemplating  the  taxing 
of  oleo  oils,  oleomargarine,  or  butterine  to  the  amount  of  10  cents  per  pound.  As 
these  products  are  manufactured  from  the  oils  extracted  from  the  fats  of  cattle,  hogs, 
and  sheep,  the  animal  of  right  should  be,  and  is,  worth  from  $1  to  $3  per  head  more 
where  the  product  can  be  manufactured  into  a  valuable  article  than  when  used  as 

(*165) 


748  OLEOMARGARINE. 

ordinary  tallow  and  lard.  I  believe  the  passage  of  such  a  measure  would  be  legis- 
lating in  the  interest  of  a  small  minority  and  not  in  the  interest  of  the  masses. 
Oleomargarine  or  butterine,  being  absolutely  pure  and  wholesome,  and  furnished  the 
consumer  at  about  half  the  price  of  creamery  butter,  is  a  very  desirable  commodity 
for  the  laboring  masses,  and  in  fact  all  people  of  moderate  means. 

As  I  have  been  and  am  still  engaged  in  raising,  buying,  and  shipping  live  stock  on 
foot,  and  as  this  measure  would  practically  prohibit  the  manufacturing  of  a  part  of 
the  animal  into  a  most  valuable  product,  thereby  reducing  the  price  of  killing  stock, 
I  desire  to  enter  my  earnest  protest  against  its  passage,  and  would  respectfully  ask 
your  cooperation  in  endeavoring  to  defeat  this  measure. 

A.  M.  TREAT. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W,  B.  CHEEK,  OF  SOUTH  OMAHA,  NEBR. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  you  occupation? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  I  ain  vice-president  of  the  Live  Stock  Exchange  at 
South  Omaha,  Nebr. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  desire  to  make  any  statement  to  the  com- 
mittee ? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  No;  I  have  no  argument  on  the  subject  aside  from  that 
which  has  been  made  by  Mr.  Hake. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  retail  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine in  your  city? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  tell  us  how  it  is  sold?  Is  it  sold  openly  as 
oleomargarine,  or  secretly? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  It  is  sold  openly  in  the  grocery  stores  and  butcher 
shops  as  oleomargarine.  For  instance,  in  my  shop,  where  I  buy  my 
meat,  is  a  table,  and  on  tbat  table  is  butterine  in  boxes  and  tubs,  and 
stacked  up  outside  of  the  boxes,  and  marked  at  all  the  way  from  12J 
cents  to  18  J  cents.  I  believe  what  they  call  prime  butterine  sells  for 
from  18J  cents  to  19  cents. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  does  the  creamery  butter  sell  for? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  I  have  never  been  able  to  buy  it  for  less  than  18  cents. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Dp  you  know  of  any  complaint  from  the  consumers 
of  the  oleomargarine  in  your  district? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  No,  sir ;  I  never  heard  of  any. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  class  of  people  is  it  that  consumes  that  oleo- 
margarine? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  The  laboring  class — principally  men  working  in  the  stock 
yards  and  packing  houses,  and  general  laborers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  there  been  any  claims  of  illegal  sales? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  No,  sir ;  no  complaint  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  ask  you  this  question:  Has  there  been  any 
decrease  in  the  price  of  dairy  cattle  in  your  country? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  there  been  any  decrease  in  the  price  of  the  dairy 
product  of  butter  ? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  there  been  any  decrease  in  the  value  of  your 
dairy  farm  land? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  I  should  say  not.    It  has  been  on  the  increase. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  increased? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  do  you  know  of  any  reason  why,  in  that 
country,  there  should  be  any  protection  given  to  the  dairy  interests  over 
the  oleomargine  interests? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  I  see  no  reason  at  all.  There  has  always  been  an  excess 
ive  demand  for  dairy  products. 

(*166) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  749 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  demand  for  dairy  products  has  been  greater 
than  the  supply  ! 

Mr.  CHEEK.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  large  a  place  is  South  Omaha! 

Mr.  CHEEK.  Twenty-five  thousand. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  character  of  industries  have  you  there! 

Mr.  CHEEK.  Packing  houses,  stock  yards,  and  miscellaneous  manu- 
facturing—a  few  foundries,  and  things  like  that — but  the  principal 
industries  there  are  the  stock  yards  and  packing  houses. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  people  are  employed  there! 

Mr.  CHEEK.  Eleven  thousand  men,  I  think. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Can  you  tell  this  committee  which  there  is  the  most 
consumption  of  there,  dairy  butter  or  oleomargarine! 

Mr.  CHEEK.  I  should  say  the  principal  consumption  was  dairy  but- 
ter. A  large  amount  of  oleomargarine  is  consumed,  but  the  principal 
consumption  is  dairy  butter. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Do  you  have  a  dairy  commissioner! 

Mr.  CHEEK.  I  never  heard  of  any. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  You  do  not  have  one  in  your  State! 

Mr.  CHEEK.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Do  you  have  any  State  official  to  see  that  the  law  is 
enforced  as  refers  to  butterine? 

Mr.  CHEEK.  Our  city  has  a  health  inspector,  who  looks  after  every- 
thing of  that  kind.  He  looks  after  the  purity  of  the  meat  in  the  meat 
shops  and  the  purity  of  the  groceries.  He  is  a  health  commissioner. 

Mr.  HAKE.  I  want  to  make  an  explanation.  Mr.  Cheek  said  that  the 
butterine  was  a  little  higher  than  the  butter.  I  presume  that  the  com- 
mittee understands  that  while  oleomargarine  is  made  out  of  the  fat  of 
the  animal  altogether,  butterine  is  supposed  to  be  one- third  pure  butter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  draw  no  distinctions  between  them. 

Mr.  HAKE.  It  is  a  mixture;  it  is  part  butter  and  part  oleo  oil. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Is  it  butterine  that  is  sold  with  you,  or  oleomargarine! 

Mr.  HAKE.  It  is  both. 

Mr.  DAHLE.  Both!  Then,  when  you  spoke  of  it  being  half  the  price 
of  butter  is  that  for  butterine  or  for  oleomargarine! 

Mr.  HAKE.  It  is  for  oleomargarine.    Butterine  comes  a  little  higher. 

Thereupon,  at  12  o'clock  m.,  the  subcommittee  adjourned. 


COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE, 

HOUSE  OP  EEPRESENTATIVES, 
Washington,  D.  0.,  Wednesday,  May  16, 1900. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Herman  B.  Dahle  in  the 
chair. 

Present :  Representatives  Wadsworth,  Henry, White,  Bailey,  Wright, 
Haugen,  Dahle,  Williams,  Stokes,  Lamb,  Cooney,  Allen,  Neville,  and 
Wilson. 

STATEMENT    OF    HON.  GEORGE    W.  WILSON,  COMMISSIONER   OF 
INTERNAL  REVENUE. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Mr.  Wilson,  the  committee  has  asked  you 
to  come  before  it  for  the  purpose  of  giving  it  such  information  as  you 
have  in  your  possession  in  regard  to  the  internal  revenue,  and  the 
enforcement  of  the  laws  in  regard  to  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleo- 


750  OLEOMARGARINE. 

margarine.  You  understand  that  there  is  a  bill  pending  before  Con- 
gress to  raise  the  tax  on  colored  oleomargarine  to  10  cents  a  pound,  do 
you  not? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  BAILEY.  What  would  be  the  effect  of  that  bill,  in 
your  opinion,  Mr.  Wilson,  in  regard  to  the  collection  of  revenue? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  It  is  pretty  hard  for  me  to  foreshadow  what 
would  be  the  result  of  forcing  the  sale  of  white  or  uncolored  oleomar- 
garine. I  should  regard  the  tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  on  colored  oleo- 
margarine as  prohibitive.  I  do  not  think  the  manufacturers  can  do 
much  with  it  with  a  tax  of  that  amount.  I  think  the  bill  would  defeat 
the  end  of  deriving  any  revenue  from  the  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine. 
1  think  that  would  be  largely  the  result  of  its  passage. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Do  you  consider  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  sufficient  to  prevent  its  fraudu- 
lent use? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  With  a  very  slight  change  in  the  law,  yes, 
sir — almost  absolutely  so. 

Kepresentative  WILLIAMS.  What  change  would  you  recommend! 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  would  recommend  a  change  which  would 
require  the  manufacturer  to  put  up  statutory  packages  in  subpackages, 
to  meet  the  lowest  demand  of  the  retail  trade  and  the  highest  demand 
of  the  wholesale  trade,  upon  each  of  which  subpackages  should  be 
impressed,  in  such  a  way  that  it  could  not  be  obscured  or  obliterated 
without  manifest  effort  and  intention,  the  word  "  oleomargarine." 

Representative  ALLEN.  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Wilson,  what  is 
your  knowledge  of  the  efficiency  of  the  service  in  executing  the  law 
with  reference  to  dealers  in  colored  oleomargarine,  especially  retail 
dealers?  I  have  been  told  that  your  representative  in  the  city  of 
Chicago  is  either  indifferent,  negligent,  or  possibly  particeps  criminis  to 
the  evasion  of  the  law. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  think  that  is  an  unjust  charge.  I  would 
prefer  that  Collector  Cohen  should  come  before  the  committee  and 
defend  himself.  He  is  a  good  collector.  There  is  this  to  be  said  gen- 
erally upon  the  whole  subject,  gentlemen:  The  manufacture  of  oleo- 
margarine in  this  country  reaches  80,000,000  of  pounds  annually,  and 
the  product  is  distributed  to  possibly  half  of  the  people  of  this  conn  try; 
and  when  you  come  down  to  handing  it  out  to  those  people  in  quantities 
of  from  half  a  pound  to  5  pounds  at  a  time,  you  necessarily  have,  in  a 
year,  a  great  many  transactions;  and  it  is  utterly  impossible,  with  the 
means  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Bureau,  to  place 
such  a  close  espionage  upon  these  little  transactions  as  to  prevent  any 
misrepresentations  with  reference  to  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter. 
We  give  more  attention  and  spend  more  money  on  that  subject  than  we 
do  upon  anything  else,  although  the  ad  valorem  tax  upon  the  product, 
as  compared  to  other  things,  is  very  low. 

The  incentive  which  brings  about  this  violation  of  the  law  is  not  lim- 
ited, in  my  judgment,  simply  to  the  desire  for  gain  upon  the  part  of  the 
retail  dealer  who  is  selling  oleomargarine.  There  are  other  sides  to  the 
question.  The  private  family,  the  boarding-house  proprietor,  the  hotel 
proprietor,  do  not  want  to  carry  home  oleomargarine  marked  as  such. 
We  encounter  a  great  deal  of  that  feeling.  The  dealer  has  paid  his 
special  tax;  he  has  no  object  in  evading  the  law,  but  he  sells  oleomar- 
garine without  any  mark  on  it.  Although  the  person  who  buys  it 
understands  that  it  is  oleomargarine,  the  dealer  has  violated  section  6 
of  the  law  by  not  putting  any  mark  on  it,  or  else  by  putting  it  on  in  such 

(*168) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  751 

an  obscure  manner  that  it  can  not  be  seen.  In  some  general  stores  we 
have  peculiar  complications  arising  from  this  condition  of  things.  For 
instance,  I  recall  a  case  which  came  into  the  office  the  other  day  where 
the  goods  of  a  particular  store,  including  coffee  and  a  pair  of  small 
pants  for  a  boy,  were  all  marked  "Oleomargarine,"  because  the  man 
said,  "Now,  I  want  this  to  be  marked  oleomargarine,  and  in  order  that 
there  may  be  no  mistake  about  it,  just  take  down  that  lot  of  brown 
paper  and  mark  every  sheet  of  it  'Oleomargarine.'"  That  is  simply  an 
illustration  of  the  condition  of  things  that  prevails. 

My  judgment  is  that  the  amount  of  this  material  that  is  known  as 
butter  is  not  nearly  so  large  as  some  people  believe;  and  my  judgment 
is  that  there  is  not  nearly  so  much  viciousness  as  is  commonly  supposed 
in  the  sale  of  that  which  is  not  marked.  I  make  a  distinction,  in  other 
words,  between  that  which  is  sold  as  butter  and  that  which  is  handed 
out  in  a  passive  way,  without  its  being  indicated  whether  it  is  butter 
or  oleomargarine.  I  do  not  think  there  is  as  much  of  that  which  is 
actuated  by  gain  as  has  been  represented. 

A  large  portion  of  this  product  is  sold  by  various  small  dealers, 
impecunious,  poor  people.  In  handling  that  sort  of  cases  we  follow 
the  same  rule  that  we  follow  with  reference  to  any  other  tax  law.  The 
Supreme  Court  has  said  to  the  Internal-Bevenue  Bureau,  "  This  is  a 
tax  law,  and  you  must  enforce  it  as  such."  The  judge  in  Philadelphia 
the  other  day,  in  passing  sentence  on  a  man  over  there  who  has  been 
rather  notorious  in  some  of  his  transactions,  quoted  from  the  Supreme 
Court  upon  that  question,  and  said  that  the  law  which  provides  inci- 
dentally for  marking  packages  of  oleomargarine  must  be  treated  as  a 
tax  law. 

We  have  had  considerable  complaint  from  some  of  the  dairy  associa- 
tions about  the  failure  to  enforce  this  law.  In  all  cases  where  such 
complaints  have  come  to  the  office,  instructions  have  been  given  to  the 
collectors  that  where  dairy  associations  or  other  interests  outside  of  the 
internal-revenue  force  bring  complaints  to  the  collectors  that  the  law 
has  been  violated  with  respect  to  evading  the  tax,  or  selling  the  product 
for  what  it  is  not,  those  cases  ought  to  be  accepted  with  the  same 
solemnity  and  confidence  that  any  other  cases  are  accepted,  and  treated 
in  the  same  way.  The  statute  provides  that  all  such  cases  shall  be 
reported  by  the  collector  to  the  district  attorney,  with  his  recommenda- 
tion that  they  be  prosecuted  or  not  prosecuted,  giving  his  reasons 
therefor.  I  have  said  to  collectors  that  in  all  such  cases  they  should 
follow  the  same  rule  with  respect  to  information  received  from  the  dairy 
associations  as  if  their  own  deputies,  or  the  internal-revenue  agents, 
discovered  the  case;  and  I  think  that  rule  has  been  observed.  When 
that  is  done,  the  matter  is  in  the  hands  of  the  district  attorney;  and 
I  have  said  also  to  the  collectors  that  where  the  district  attorney 
recommends  a  prosecution  no  proposition  for  compromise  can  be  enter- 
tained. 

Now,  some  of  these  cases  have  been  compromised,  and  some  complaint 
has  been  made  of  the  Internal-  Revenue  Bureau  with  reference  to  that 
policy.  We  are  not  as  liberal  with  respect  to  compromising  oleomar- 
garine cases,  considering  the  amount  of  tax  evaded,  as  we  are  with  some 
other  lines  of  internal  revenue  violations.  Under  no  circumstances  is 
an  oleomargarine  case  ever  compromised  unless  it  involves  the  favorable 
recommendation  of  the  deputy  or  agent  who  discovered  it,  the  collector 
of  the  district,  and  the  district  attorney.  Unless  all  of  those  recom- 
mendations are  made  we  do  not  do  it.  But  when  the  local  force  which 
has  made  the  discovery  and  investigated  it,  backed  up  by  the  district 

(*169) 


752  OLEOMARGARINE. 

attorney,  comes  forward  and  says  that  a  particular  case  ought  not  to  be 
prosecuted  for  such  and  such  reasons,  then  the  Internal  Revenue  Bureau, 
as  a  rule,  accepts  the  advice. 

Representative  ALLEN.  You  stated  a  while  ago  that  you  thought  the 
imposition  of  this  tax  would  defeat  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine. 
I  understand  you  to  mean  its  legitimate  manufacture. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes. 

Representative  ALLEN.  What  do  you  say  with  regard  to  its  illicit, 
"moonshine"  manufacture? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  We  have  not  any. 

Representative  ALLEN.  What  would  happen  if  this  prohibitive  tax 
is  placed  upon  the  product,  in  your  opinion? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  If  it  operated  in  the  same  way  that  a  high 
ad  valorem  tax  does  upon  distilled  spirits,  it  would  result  in  the  manu- 
facture of  "moonshine  oleo."  But  I  think  it  would  drive  it  out. 

Representative  ALLEN.  You  think  it  would  abolish  the  industry 
entirely? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  sir;  I  do  not  think  we  can  have  "moon- 
shine" oleo.  There  has  never  been  any  evasion  of  the  law  with  respect 
to  paying  the  tax  on  oleomargarine,  except  in  a  very  incidental  and 
limited  way.  Neither  the  special  tax  (although  it  is  high)  nor  the 
2-cent  pound  tax  have  ever  been  evaded.  We  have  no  trouble  in  col- 
lecting them. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Under  the  present  law  you  have  the  right 
to  inspect  and  investigate  and  have  an  analysis  made  of  this  product, 
I  believe. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  ALLEN.  What  has  been  your  experience,  and  what 
has  been  the  result  of  any  work  you  have  done  along  that  line? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  There  has  been  a  very  limited  amount  ot 
what  might  be  called  a  general  investigation  made.  In  a  very  brief 
way  I  will  recite  the  history  of  that  investigation;  it  will  not  take  more 
than  a  minute  or  two.  You  will  find  it  all  recorded  in  Senate  Document 
No.  2346.  There  is  one  very  short  paragraph  which  I  want  to  read 
from  the  testimony  of  Professor  Morton.  I  was  here  when  this  legisla- 
tion was  passed,  and  was  present  at  a  good  many  of  these  hearings. 
Congress  never  made  such  a  research,  so  far  as  I  have  any  knowledge, 
with  respect  to  the  propriety  of  passing  a  law,  as  it  did  before  the  pass- 
age, in  1886,  of  this  internal-revenue  law.  It  was  a  most  protracted 
and  searching  hearing,  as  will  be  found  by  any  of  you  who  examine  this 
document,  which  Congress  had  in  order  to  find  a  foundation  upon  whir.h 
to  place  their  feet  if  they  did  pass  the  law;  and  they  found  it.  It  is 
contained  here  in  a  dozen-line  paragraph — the  whole  foundation  on 
which  the  Internal-Revenue  Bureau  stands  with  respect  to  these  inves- 
tigations. 

Representative  ALLEN.  What  is  the  page  of  that  document? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  This  is  page  47  of  this  hearing.  I  read  from 
the  testimony  of  Professor  Morton : 

In  the  first  place,  I  have  found,  as  a  matter  of  observation,  that  fat  which  is  to 
he  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  if  it  is  in  the  slightest  degree  tainted 
before  the  manufacture  begins,  if  it  is  not  strictly  fresh,  if  it  is  not  taken  almost 
directly  from  the  slaughtered  animal,  if  it  is  allowed  to  stand  in  a  barrel  for  a  few 
hours  in  ordinary  weather  or  in  cold  weather,  if  put  in  a  barrel  with  any  animal 
heat,  in  a  few  hours,  then  an  incipient  change  begins,  which  in  the  succeeding 
processes  is  exaggerated,  so  that  an  utterly  offensive  material  is  produced  which 
could  not  be  used  for  any  such  purpose. 

That  doctrine  is  sustained  by  all  the  scientists  who  testified  during 
the  course  of  that  hearing.  Following  right  after  the  enactment  of  the 

(*170) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  753 

law,  in  1887  or  1888,  a  general  examination  was  made  over  the  whole 
country  with  respect  to  that  condition  of  things;  and  the  report  was 
universal  that  the  statement  which  I  have  just  read  was  found  to  be 
true  for  the  whole  sixty-three  collection  districts  of  the  country.  From 
that  time  until  to-day  no  further  general  examination  has  been  made. 
Desultory  investigations  have  been  made  of  certain  oil  that  has  been 
brought  in.  Some  manufacturer  would  wander  off  the  track,  and  use  a 
name  which  was  a  little  strange;  and  that  would  excite  some  curiosity 
to  know  what  it  was;  but  it  would  turn  out  to  be  the  same  flower  with 
a  different  name.  But  in  order  to  be  reasonably  certain  about  that 
matter,  Congress  has  provided  the  Internal  Eevenue  Bureau  with  a 
laboratory  and  a  competent  chemist,  and  with  money  with  which  to 

Purchase  the  current  literature  of  the  day  upon  these  questions.  And 
have  asked  our  chemist  if  in  this  hiatus  of  time  from  1887  or  1888, 
when  this  last  general  investigation  was  made,  up  to  date  science 
has  made  any  advance  which  would  change  the  condition  of  things 
described  by  Professor  Morton;  and  my  advice  is  that  if  it  has  our 
scientist  does  not  know  it,  and  it  has  not  been  written  in  the  books. 

Kepresentative  ALLEN.  Now,  sir,  have  any  complaints  been  made  to 
your  department  of  any  deleterious  or  injurious  effect  caused  by  the 
consumption  of  this  article? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  No,  sir;  no,  sir.  The  only  complaint  that 
has  ever  reached  the  office  was  a  letter  which  Mr.  Tawney  published 
here,  in  the  Star,  I  think — at  least,  it  was  the  same  letter  that  he  read 
to  me.  I  took  a  copy  of  it  and  sent  it  to  the  agent  in  charge  of  the  terri- 
tory where  most  of  these  oils  are  produced,  and  had  a  very  complete  and 
thorough  investigation  made,  and  have  here  a  copy  of  his  report. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  That  is  a  copy  of  the  report? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  A  copy  of  the  report  of  the  agent — yes,  sir. 
He  does  not  find  any  ground  whatever  for  the  charge  made  in  that  letter. 
He  says  it  is  false  and  utterly  unworthy  of  belief;  and  he  shows  pretty 
conclusively,  I  think,  that  his  statements  are  true.  And  without  his 
knowing  anything  about  the  doctrine  laid  down  here,  in  this  investi- 
gation to  which  I  have  referred,  he  brings  out  in  this  same  report  the 
fact  that  the  same  condition  of  things  exists. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Will  you  file  that  report  with  your  evidence, 
as  an  exhibit! 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes. 

(The  report  referred  to  above  is  as  follows:) 

INTERNAL-REVENUE  SERVICE,  OFFICE  or  AGENT, 

Chicago,  III.,  May  *t  1900. 
Hon.  G.  W.  WILSON, 

Commissioner  Internal  Eevenue,  Washington,  D.  0. 

SIR  :  In  accordance  with  instructions  contained  in  your  letter  of  the  24th  ultimo, 
in  which  you  inclose  copy  of  a  published  letter  describing  the  character  of  material 
used  by  some  of  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  in  Chicago,  directing  me  to  make 
a  most  thorough  search  and  investigation  of  the  charges  contained  in  the  published 
letter,  being  careful  to  eliminate  every  doubt  that  might  be  involved  in  the  matter 
before  making  my  report,  I  now  have  the  honor  to  report  as  follows: 

On  the  30th  ultimo  I,  in  company  with  Revenue  Agent  II.  B.  Burgh  and  Special 
Employees  O.  S.  Martin  and  J.  O.  Anderson,  proceeded  to  the  Chicago  Union  Stock 
Yards,  where  we  visited  the  following  establishments,  which  are  either  engaged  in 
the  business  of  manufacturing  oleomargarine  or  are  producers  of  either  oleo  oil  or 
neutral  oil.  Revenue  Agent  Burgh  visited  the  place  of  business  of  Armour  &  Co., 
Thomas  J.  Lipton  Company,  and  Boyd,  Lunham  &  Co. ;  Special  Employees  Martin  and 
Anderson  visited  the  place  of  business  of  Swift  &  Co.  and  Nelson  Morris  &  Co., 
while  1  visited  the  place  of  business  of  Friedman  &  Co.,  Anglo-American  Provision 
Company,  and  the  International  Packing  Company. 

It  was  understood  by  all  of  the  visiting  revenue  officers  that  in  pursuing  their  inves- 
tigations at  the  several  establishments  particular  attention  should  be  given  to  the 

*S.  Rep.  2043 48      (*171) 


754  OLEOMARGARINE. 

so-called  rendering  tanks  that  are  complained  of  in  the  published  letter,  and  that 
they  should  follow  the  different  materials  that  go  into  the  production  of  oleomar- 
garine from  the  point  where  the  animals  are  slaughtered,  or  where  the  fats  are  taken 
from  the  animals  after  heing  slaughtered,  through  all  of  their  different  processes  and 
manipulations,  to  the  finished  oils. 

Revenue  A^ent  Burgh  reports  the  following  as  heing  the  result  of  his  investigation 
at  the  establishment  of  Armour  &  Co.  He  took  up  his  investigation  of  the  mate- 
rials that  enter  into  the  production  of  oleomargarine  at  the  point  where  the  fats  are 
taken  from  the  carcasses;  that  he  followed  the  fat  products  of  the  hog  and  of  the 
beef  from  that  point  through  their  various  channels  until  the  process  of  the  produc- 
tion of  neutral  oil  and  oleo  oil  was  fully  completed.  In  pursuing  his  investigations 
with  reference  to  neutral  oil,  he  found  that  the  leaf  of  the  hog,  commonly  known  as 
the  leaf  lard,  and  back  fat — that  is  to  say,  that  portion  of  the  fat  of  the  hog  that  is 
taken  from  the  back — are  the  only  portions  of  the  hog  product  that  goes  into  the  pro- 
duction of  neutral  oil.  These  fats,  after  being  taken  from  the  hog,  are  placed  for  a 
time  in  a  refrigerating  room  for  the  purpose  of  extracting  all  animal  heat,  and  are 
allowed  to  remain  there  until  such  time  as  they  may  be  needed  for  the  production  of 
neutral  oil,  when  they  are  taken  from  the  refrigerating  room  to  a  cutting  machine, 
where  they  are  reduced  to  smaller  particles.  From  the  cutting  machines  all  parti- 
cles are  removed  to  a  griudJng  machine,  where  the  mass  is  reduced  to  a  pulp  about 
the  consistency  of  ice  cream.  The  ground  mass  or  pulp  is  put  into  open  heating 
tanks,  where  it  is  allowed  to  heat  to  about  160°  temperature,  where  the  neutral  oil 
is  separated  from  the  fiber  or  tissue. 

Revenue  Agent  Burgh  further  reports  that  his  investigation  at  Armour  &  Co.'s 
establishment,  like  that  at  other  packing  establishments  visited  by  him,  disclosed 
the  fact  that  these  establishments  do  employ  in  their  business  rendering  tanks,  but 
these  rendering  tanks  are  in  no  wise  employed  in  the  production  of  neutral  oils,  and 
can  not  be  so  employed.  (This  will  be  commented  upon  later  and  the  reasons  fully 
set  forth.) 

The  question  of  the  production  of  oleo  oil  was  next  taken  up  by  Revenue  Agent 
Burgh,  and  made  the  subject  of  his  investigation  at  the  Armour  plant.  It  was  found, 
by  following  the  fat  from  the  point  at  which  it  was  taken  from  the  beef,  that  oleo 
oil  is  obtained  in  a  similar  manner  to  that  by  which  neutral  oil  is  obtained.  The 
beef  fats  that  go  into  the  production  of  oleo  oils  are  known  as  caul  fat,  ruffle  fat,  and 
kidney  fat,  the  caul  fat  and  ruffle  fat  being  used  in  the  production  of  the  higher 
grades  of  oleo  oil  and  the  kidney  fat  being  used  in  the  lower  grades  of  oleo  oil. 

Revenue  Agent  Burgh  further  reports  that  in  his  investigation  at  Armour  &  Co.'s 
he  did  not  find  any  process  employed  by  that  company  for  processing  and  deodoriz- 
ing unwholesome  fats,  such  as  is  mentioned  in  the  published  letter,  and  upon  this 
point  he  obtained  a  statement  from  G.  J.  Brine,  of  Armour  &  Co.,  which  statement 
is  herewith  submitted,  and  is  made  a  part  of  this  report,  and  marked  Exhibit  A. 

Revenue  Agent  Burgh  next  visited  the  establishment  of  Thomas  J.  Lipton  Com- 
pany, packers  of  meats  and  producers  of  both  neutral  and  oleo  oils,  where  the  same 
conditions  were  found  as  were  found  at  Armour  &  Co.'s.  These  gentlemen  informed 
Revenue  Agent  Burgh  that,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned,  they  had  received  no 
demands  from  oleomargarine  manufacturers  for  either  neutral  oil  or  oleo  oil  that  is 
produced  from  any  of  the  lower  grades  of  fats.  At  this  establishment  there  was  an 
absence  of  the  so-called  rendering  tanks  for  rendering  the  poorer  grades  of  fat  men- 
tioned in  the  published  letter. 

Revenue  Agent  Burgh  next  visited  the  packing  establishment  of  Boyd,  Lnnham 
&  Co.,  packers  of  meats  and  producers  of  oleo  and  neutral  oils.  The  same  method 
of  investigation  was  pursued  at  this  establishment  as  that  employed  at  the  Armour  & 
Co.  and  Thomas  J.  Lipton  Company  plants.  Boyd,  Lunhani  <fc  Co.,  in  a  letter  to 
Revenue  Agent  Burgh,  which  I  inclose  with  this  report,  say,  in  answer  to  his  inquiry 
relative  to  the  nature  of  the  materials  that  are  used  by  them  in  the  production  of 
neutral  and  oleo  oils:  "We  supply  to  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  and  but- 
terine,  and  in  no  case  have  we  delivered  to  them  other  than  the  straight  goods,  viz, 
leaf  lard  and  back  fat,  nor  has  there  been  any  solicitation  on  the  part  of  such 
manufacturers  to  furnish  any  other  than  the  two  above-named  products.'7  (See 
Exhibit  B.) 

Special  employees  O.  S.  Martin  and  J.  O.  Anderson,  having  visited  Swift  &  Co.  and 
Nelson  Morris  &.  Co.,  report  the  result  of  their  investigations  with  reference  to  the 
materials  used  in  the  manufacture  of  neutral  oil  and  oleo  oils  by  these  establish- 
ments in  the  following  manner.  I  qnote  from  their  report: 

"On  the  30th  ultimo  we  visited  the  packing  house  of  Swift  &  Co.  at  the  Union 
Stock  Yards  and  began  our  investigations  at  the  slaughtering  pens  at  the  hog 
department,  and  found  that  upon  the  opening  of  the  slaughtered  hog  the  leaf  fat  is 
taken  therefrom  and  removed  to  the  cooling  room,  where  the  animal  heat  is  allowed 
to  escape.  This  leaf  fat  we  then  followed  to  the  top  of  the  neutral  department, 
where  we  spent  Rome  time  in  watching  the  product  enter  what  is  known  as  the 

(*1T2) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  755 

chopping  machines,  into  which  nothing  was  pnt  but  the  finest  leaf  fats.  We  then 
followed  this  product  next  to  the  grinding  machines,  which  pulverize  or  grind  the 
leaf  fat  to  a  pulp  closely  resembling  ice  cream.  The  pulp  is  then  conducted  to  open 
kettles,  which  are  heated  to  a  certain  low  temperature  by  means  of  hot  water  cir- 
culating around  the  open  kettle.  The  product  from  these  kettles  is  then  drawn  off 
and  is  allowed  to  percolate  through  several  thicknesses  of  straining  cloth,  and  the 
residue,  after  the  neutral  lard  is  strained  off,  is  pnmped  across  to  the  lard  department, 
where  it  is  subjected  to  a  high  heat  under  pressure  for  the  production  of  steam  lard. 
We  then  followed  the  neutral  oil  through  the  numerous  straining  processes  to  the 
cooling  room,  where  it  is  drawn  off  into  new  barrels  and  prepared  for  sale  orpumped 
to  the  tanks  in  their  oleomargarine  department. 

"Our  attention  was  then  directed  to  the  possibility  of  fats  from  diseased  and  dead 
hogs  being  used  in  the  production  of  neutral  oil,  and  we  find  two  very  substantial 
reasons  why  it  would  be  impossible  for  anything  of  that  kind  to  enter  into  its  pro- 
duction : 

"  First.  Because  in  the  cage  of  a  hog  that  dies  of  disease,  or  is  killed  without  imme- 
diately losing  its  blood,  each  part  of  the  body  becomes  at  once  permeated  with  the 
hog  or  lardy  taste,  which  prevents  the  making  of  an  odorless  or  tasteless  product, 
such  as  is  required  in  the  production  of  neutral  oil. 

"  Second.  Because  the  rules  of  the  Stock  Yards  Company  require  the  disposal  of 
and  immediate  removal  of  dead  and  diseased  hogs  from  the  yards,  and  the  Stock 
Yards  Company  are  now  under  contract  with  Joim  Brannock,  of  Globe,  Ind.,  for 
the  immediate  removal  of  all  such  hogs  to  his  rendering  plant  at  that  point,  where, 
we  were  informed,  the  extracted  greases  are  disposed  of  to  lubricating  companies 
and  cheap  soap  companies. 

"  We  then  took  up  the  subject  of  oleo  oil,  following  this  product  from  the  slaugh- 
tering rooms,  where  the  caul  fat  and  the  ruffle  fat  of  the  beeves  are  taken  after  the 
animal  has  passed  the  inspection  of  the  Government  inspectors  of  the  Department 
of  Agriculture.  The  above-described  fats,  after  being  removed  from  the  animal,  are 
immediately  subjected  to  ice- water  baths,  and  pass  from  one  tank  of  ice  water  to 
another  until  they  reach  the  cutting  room  in  the  oleo-oil  department.  The  fats  then 
pass  through  grinding  machines,  and  from  the  grinding  machines  into  huge  open 
kettles,  where  they  are  subjected  to  a  low  heat,  after  which  they  are  drawn  off  into  vats 
to  cool.  After  cooling  the  fats  are  placed  in  small  cotton  sacks  and  put  under  pres- 
sure, thus  extracting  the  oleo  oil,  similar  to  methods  employed  at  a  cider  mill  for 
extracting  the  cider  from  the  apple.  The  residue,  or  tallowy  substance  remaining, 
commonly  known  as  '  stearin/  being  a  commercial  article,  is  much  sought  after  by 
soap  manufacturers.  We  then  followed  the  oleo  oil  to  the  cooling  room,  from  which 
point  it  is  either  pumped  to  the  vats  in  the  oleomargarine  department,  to  be  used  in 
the  production  of  oleomargarine,  or  is  drawn  off  into  new  barrels  for  local  shipment 
or  for  export ." 

With  reference  to  the  examination  of  the  methods  and  materials  employed  by  Nel- 
son Morris  &  Co.  for  the  production  of  neutral  and  oleo  oils  Special  Employees  Mar- 
tin and  Anderson  report  the  result  of  their  investigations  as  follows.  I  quote  from 
their  report : 

"  We  visited  the  packing  house  of  Nelson  Morris  &  Co.,  at  the  Union  Stock  Yards, 
who  are  manufacturers  of  oleo  oils  and  neutral  oils,  where  our  investigation  was  as 
thorough  as  the  one  made  at  Swift  &  Co. 

"  We  were  conducted  through  this  plant  by  Mr.  Johnson,  general  superintendent, 
who  informed  us,  in  response  to  the  query  as  to  the  possibility  of  offal  and  diseased 
fats  entering  into  the  manufacture  of  oleo  oils  and  neutral  oils,  that  each  beef  and 
hog  was  regularly  inspected  by  the  Government  inspectors  after  the  animal  had  been 
killed  and  bled,  and  that  the  amount  of  stock  which  had  been  rejected  by  these 
inspectors  during  the  year  1899,  and  which  by  reason  of  that  inspection  had  been 
pronounced  to  be  unfit  for  consumption  and  had  been  sent  to  the  soap-grease  fac- 
tory, covers  an  amount  exceeding  over  $20,000.  Our  entire  investigation  at  this  plant 
resulted,  substantially,  the  same  as  at  the  packing  house  of  Swift  &  Co." 

On  the  2d  instant  Special  Employees  Martin  and  Anderson  visited  the  oleomarga- 
rine factories  of  W.  J.  Moxley,  63  West  Monroe  street,  and  Braun  &  Fitts,  North 
Union  street,  Chicago,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  methods  employed  and 
the  materials  used  by  them  in  the  production  of  neutral  oil.  These  gentlemen  report 
the  result  of  their  investigations  at  the  above  establishments  as  follows: 

"  We  found  that,  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  they  (W.  J.  Moxley  and 
Braun  &  Fitts)  used  neutral  oil  of  their  own  manufacture.  They  buy  leaf  lard  at 
the  Union  Stock  Yards,  usually  from  Armour  &  Co.  and  Swift  &  Co.  and  Nelson 
Morris  &  Co.,  which  leaf  is  taken  to  their  factories,  where  it  is  put  through  the 
various  processes  employed  by  other  producers  of  neutral  oil.  Neither  W.  J.  Moxley 
nor  Braun  &  Fitts  are  producers  of  oleo  oil.  Oleo  oils  are  purchased  by  these  firms 
from  Armour  &  Co.,  Swift  &  Co.,  and  Nelson  Morris  at  the  stock  yards.  The 
materials  found  at  these  establishments,  which  enter  into  the  production  of  neutral 

(*173) 


756  OLEOMARGARINE. 

oils,  were  in  no  wise  different  from  that  fouud  to  be  employed  at  other  establish- 
ments that  produced  neutral  oils,  and  there  was  nothing  in  the  investigation  that 
would  go  to  show  that  any  of  the  low  grades  of  fats  complained  of  in  the  published 
letter  are  nsed  by  these  concerns." 

As  both  W.  J.  Moxley  and  Braun  &  Fitts  manufacture  leaf  lard  for  commercial 
purposes,  it  is  necessary  for  them  to  have  in  their  establishments  rendering  tanks, 
but  these  rendering  tanks  are  not  used  in  the  production  of  neutral  oils. 

The  result  of  my  own  investigations  at  the  establishments  visited  by  me  are  as 
follows: 

Friedmann  &  Co.  are  not  packers  of  meats.  They  are  manufacturers  of  oleomarga- 
rine and  producers  of  neutral  oils,  but  do  not  produce  oleo  oil.  The  fats  from  which 
they  produce  their  neutral  oils  are  purchased  from  the  Anglo-American  Provision 
Company,  packers  of  meats  at  the  Chicago  stock  yards.  At  the  time  of  my  arrival 
at  the  establishment  of  Friedmann  &  Co.,  several  wagons  of  the  Anglo-American 
Provision  Company  and  Nelson  Morris  &  Co.  were  found  unloading  leaf  lard  of  the 
finest  and  best  grade.  No  inferior  or  low  grades  of  fsybs  were  found  in  any  of  the 
wagons.  I  followed  the  leaf  lard  that  was  being  received  from  the  time  it  left  the 
wagons  until  it  was  placed  in  the  refrigerating  room,  where  it  is  allowed  to  remain 
until  all  of  the  animal  heat  has  been  removed.  This  process,  I  am  informed,  requires 
anywhere  from  two  to  four  days.  From  the  refrigerating  room  I  followed  the  leaf 
lard  to  the  cutting  machines,  where  it  is  cut  into  smaller  bits,  and  from  there  to  the 
grinding  machines,  where  it  is  reduced  to  a  pulp,  and  then  on  to  the  heating  kettles, 
where  it  is  heated  to  about  the  temperature  of  155°  to  160°.  These  heating  kettles 
are  open  kettles  and  are  heated  with  hot  water  (not  steam)  by  having  the  hot  water 
circulate  around  the  kettle  in  which  the  leaf  lard  is  being  heated.  In  other  words, 
the  heating  kettle  is  a  kettle  within  a  kettle,  hot  water  circulating  between  the 
two,  in  a  space  of  3  or  4  inches  all  around  the  inner  kettle.  From  the  heating 
kettle  the  neutral  fats  are  removed  and  the  neutral  oils  are  expressed  by  straining 
process  and  filtration  from  the  fiber  and  tissue. 

All  of  the  fat  that  is  not  expressed  from  the  leaf  lard  in  the  production  of  neutral 
oil,  and  that  portion  that  remains  in  the  tissue,  together  with  other  fats,  is  taken  to 
a  rendering  tank,  where  it  is  subjected  to  a  steam  pressure  of  about  50  pounds  to  the 
square  inch,  and  at  a  temperature  anywhere  from  260°  to  300°,  the  result  being  the 
production  of  what  is  known  as  steam  lard. 

Every  packer  of  meats,  whether  he  be  also  a  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  or  a 
producer  of  neutral  or  oleo  oils,  has  in  his  establishment  rendering  tanks,  but  neu- 
tral oil  is  not  and  can  not  be  obtained  by  heating  in  these  tanks.  In  the  first  place 
there  must  be  a  total  absence  of  any  lardy  smell  in  the  neutral  oil  that  is  intended 
to  go  into  the  production  of  oleomargarine,  and  in  order  to  obtain  that  result  the 
leaf  lard  must  be  heated  in  open  kettles,  such  as  I  have  already  described,  and  with 
only  sufficient  heat  to  break  the  grain  of  the  fats. 

Any  lard,  whether  leaf  lard  of  the  finest  quality  or  of  the  lower  grades,  that  has 
been  subjected  to  heat  at  a  temperature  of  more  than  about  160°,  would  take  on  the 
lardy  flavor  (the  very  thing  that  every  oleomargarine  manufacturer  and  producer 
of  neutral  oils  desires  to  avoid),  and  would  be  wholly  unfit  for  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine. 

I  then  visited  the  Anglo-American  Provision  Company,  packers  of  pork  at  the 
Union  Stock  Yards.  The  Anglo-American  Provision  Company  manufacture  neither 
neutral  oil  nor  oleo  oil.  They  dispose  of  all  their  leaf  lard  to  Friedraann  &  Co.,  and 
the  balance  of  the  hog  fats  are  rendered  up  by  themselves  into  steam-rendered  lard. 

I  next  visited  the  plant  of  the  International  Packing  Company  at  the  Chicago 
stock  yards.  The  International  Packing  Company  are  manufacturers  of  oleomar- 
garine and  producers  of  neutral  oils.  The  oleo  oil  that  is  used  by  this  company  in 
the  production  of  their  oleomargarine  is  purchased  by  them  from  Swift  &  Co.  and 
is  considered  to  be  of  the  finest  quality.  (A  sample  of  this  oleo  oil  is  mailed  to  you 
this  day,  together  with  a  sample  of  the  neutral  oil  produced  by  the  International 
Packing  Company,  and  is  made  the  subject  of  a  separate  letter.) 

The  International  Packing  Company,  being  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine,  have 
set  apart  a  portion  of  their  plant  to  be  used  exclusively  in  the  production  of  that 
article.  Into  this  building  all  of  the  fats  that  go  into  the  production  of  neutral  oil 
are  brought  and  are  heated  in  open  kettles,  such  as  I  have  already  described,  as  are 
used  by  every  producer  of  neutral  oil.  The  only  portion  of  hog  fats  that  come  into 
this  building  that  go  into  the  production  of  neutral  oil,  which  is  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine,  is  the  leaf  lard,  the  lower  grades  of  hog  fats  being  ren- 
dered up  in  the  rendering  tanks  that  are  kept  in  their  other  buildings. 

On  the  1st  instant  Revenue  Agent  H.  B.  Burgh  and  myself  went  to  Hammond, 
Ind.,  where  we  thoroughly  investigated  the  methods  that  are  employed  by  the  G.  H. 
Hammond  Company  for  producing  neutral  oil  and  oleo  oil,  and  the  materials  that 
enter  into  their  production.  As  in  other  establishments  of  this  kind  visited  by  us, 
ire  followed  the  fats  that  go  into  the  production  of  neutral  oil  and  those  that  go 


OLEOMARGARINE.  757 

into  the  production  of  oleo  oil  from  the  time  the  fats  »re  taken  from  the  slaughtered 
animals  to  the  finished  oils,  and  from  that  on  into  where  the  oils  are  used  in  the  pro- 
duction of  oleomargarine.  The  production  of  neutral  oil  and  oleo  oil  by  the  G.  H. 
Hammond  Company  is  in  no  wise  different  from  that  found  in  other  similar  estab- 
lishments. The  materials  used  in  the  production  of  these  oils  were  closely  exam- 
ined by  us,  and  were  f,ound  to  be  of  the  highest  grades.  The  much-mooted 
question  of  rendering  tanks,  which  is  referred  to  in  the  published  letter,  was  care- 
fully investigated  by  us,  with  the  result  that  the  conditions  found  did  not  bear  out 
the  charges  contained  in  that  letter.  On  the  other  hand,  the  materials  used  in  the 
production  of  these  oils  are  of  the  finest  quality  and  are  carefully  handled  from  start 
to  finish,  extra  care  being  used  with  reference  to  cleanliness. 

The  G.  H.  Hammond  Company,  at  my  request,  furnished  me  with  a  sampleof  their 
neutral  oil,  a  sample  of  their  oleo  oil,  and  a  sample  of  their  salad  or  cotton-seed  oil. 
These  samples  I  have  this  day  forwarded  to  your  office  for  your  inspection  with 
reference  to  the  purity  of  the  materials  used  by  the  G.  H.  Hammond  Company,  in 
the  production  of  their  oleomargarine,  and  are  made  the  subject  of  a  separate 
report. 

In  pursuing  our  investigations  with  reference  to  the  charges  set  forth  in  the  pub- 
lished letter,  we  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  that,  instead  of  finding  the  conditions 
as  charged  in  that  letter,  I  think  we  are  absolutely  safe  in  saying  that  we  found 
the  conditions  to  he  exactly  opposite.  There  is  nothing  in  our  investigations  to 
show  that  producers  of  neutral  oils  and  oleo  oils  have  any  knowledge  of  the 
11  deodorizing  process/'  nor  have  they  introduced  any  deodorizing  process  in  their 
establishments  whereby  the  lower  grades  of  fats  can  be  processed  and  turned  into 
the  products  that  go  into  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  and  butterine,  as  is 
stated  in  the  published  letter. 

The  packers  at  the  Chicago  stock  yards,  who  are  also  producers  of  neutral  and 
oleo  oils,  have  read  published  accounts  in  the  Chicago  papers,  which  are  similar  in 
tone  to  the  clipping  that  you  sent  to  me,  and  are  making  every  effort  to  learn  who 
the  employee  is  that  wrote  the  letter,  claiming  to  have  had  thirteen  years'  experience 
at  the  stock  yards  as  an  employee,  but  so  far  they  have  been  unable  to  locate  the 
writer.  However,  it  is  the  general  impression  among  nearly  all  of  the  packers,  as 
well  as  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers,  that  the  author  of  the  published  letter  is 
Charles  Y.  Knight,  manager  Chicago  Dairy  Produce,  a  publication  published  in  the 
interest  of  dairy  products,  188  South  Water  street,  Chicago. 

We  have  tried  to  make  our  investigations  full  and  complete,  and  have  endeavored 
to  give  the  facts  just  as  they  presented  themselves,  with  the  view  of  supplying  all 
of  the  information  relative  to  the  published  charges  that  was  obtainable,  and  hope 
we  have  covered  the  most  important  points.  Our  report  may  seem  a  little  lengthy, 
but  considering  the  ground  that  had  to  be  gone  over  in  order  to  make  an  intelligent 
report,  we  do  not  see  how  we  could  have  conveyed  the  information  otherwise. 
We  are  very  respectfully,  yours, 

JAMES  W.  McGiNNis, 
H.  B.  BURGH, 

Revenue  Agents. 


EXHIBIT  A* 

ARMOUR  &  Co., 
Chicago,  ULt  April  SO,  1900. 
Mr.  H.  B.  BURGH, 

Revenue  Agent,  Chicago,  HI. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  have  looked  over  the  letter  sent  to  the  honorable  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Revenue  under  date  of  April  24,  1900,  purporting  to  have  been  written  by 
an  employee  of  the  stock  yards,  and  we  beg  to  state  that  most  of  the  statements 
therein  we  believe  to  be  entirely  without  foundation  in  fact. 

The  allegation  that  "the  demand  for  so-called  oleo  oil  or  fat  has  so  increased  that 
the  stock  yards  plant  has  introduced  deodorizing  processes,  so  that  all  kinds  of 
inferior  fats  and  offal  can  be  turned  into  products  which  go  into  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine  and  butterine."  we  answer  by  saying  that  as  we  ourselves  abandoned 
the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  immediately  upon  the  passage  of  the  Illinois  law 
rendering  it  illegal  to  color  this  article,  we  have  since  then  sold  the  oleo  oil  and 
other  products  entering  into  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  to  manufacturers  of 
that  article.  The  demand  that  we  supply  being  both  foreign  and  domestic,  we  are 
in  position  to  state  emphatically  that  we  find  no  inquiry  existing  for  the  lower 
grades  of  fats  and  oils  mentioned  in  the  letter  alluded  to,  but  on  the  contrary  that 
oleomargarine  manufacturers  demand  and  have  supplied  to  them  invariably  product* 
made  from  material  that  IB  first  class  in  every  particular. 

(*175) 


758  OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  statement  that  "barrels  are  filled  with  anything  that  can  be  processed,  deodor- 
ized, and  turned  into  oleo  oil  and  then  delivered  to  the  factories;  when  these  bar- 
rels are  empty  they  are  returned  to  the  grease  producers  and  filled  again.  This  is 
the  principal  ingredient  in  the  much  advertised  grade  of  finely  colored  butterine  on 
the  market  at  the  present  time.  It  is  carefully  gotten  up  for  the  retail  trade,"  we 
beg  to  say,  so  far  as  we  know  (and  we  believe  we  are  fully  informed)  is  made  with- 
out the  slightest  warrant. 

The  further  statement  in  this  letter  as  follows :  "  No  tallow  is  sold  from  the  stock 
yards  nowadays,"  is  false.  The  further  statement  that  "Butterine  demands  it  all/' 
we  know  to  be  false. 

It  is  further  stated  that  "the  horse  killers  and  dead  animal  contractors  and  fertil- 
izing producers  furnish  soap  stocks,  etc.,"  which  is  false,  and  we  are  not  surprised 
that  "no  name  is  furnished  as  to  who  the  writer  of  the  above  letter  may  be." 

Respecting  the  use  to  which  many  of  the  by-products  of  the  hogs  and  cattle  killed 
at  the  Union  Stock  Yards  are  put,  we  beg  to  state  that — 

Leaf  lard  is  exclusively  used  in  the  production  of  neutral  oil. 

Beef  suet  and  kidney  fat  of  beef  cattle  are  exclusively  used  in  the  production  of 
oleo  oil. 

We  beg  to  state,  in  answer  to  your  question  respecting  the  employment  of  a  ren- 
dering tank  for  rendering  poorer  grades  of  fat  either  from  hogs  or  cattle  for  the 
production  of  neutral  oil  and  oleo  oils,  thut  no  such  rendering  tanks  for  this  purpose 
is  employed  by  us,  and  that  therefore  we  are  sure  that  these  so-called  poorer  grades 
of  fat  are  not  used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  cheaper  grades  of  oils,  oleomargarine, 
or  butterine. 

In  answer  to  your  question  as  to  whether  any  of  the  oils  manufactured  by  us  and 
used  by  oleomargarine  manufacturers  in  the  production  of  their  oleomargarine  or 
butterine  are  in  any  manner  deleterious  to  public  health,  we  beg  to  state  that  these 
oils  are  not  only  not  deleterious  to  public  health,  but  are  wholesome,  nutrient, 
palatable,  and  in  all  respects  as  desirable  for  human  food  as  any  other  portion  of  the 
animals  from  which  these  oils  are  produced. 

In  conclusion,  we  beg  to  state  that  the  anonymous  letter  to  which  our  attention 
has  been  called  is  utterly  devoid  of  truth,  and  that  the  charges  made  respecting  the 
quality  of  the  oleomargarine  now  upon  the  market  (and  of  the  products  from  which 
it  is  manufactured)  are,  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge  and  in  the  light  of  our  experi- 
ence, entirely  without  foundation. 

Yours,  very  truly,  ARMOUR  &  Co., 

GEO.  J.  BRINE. 


UNION  STOCK  YARDS, 

Chicago,  April  30,  1900. 
Mr.  H.  B.  BURGH. 

DEAR  SIR  :  In  answer  to  your  inquiry  relative  to  the  nature  of  the  product  we 
supply  to  the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  and  butterine,  we  have  but  to  say 
that  in  no  case  have  we  delivered  them  other  than  the  straight  goods,  viz,  leaf  lard 
and  back  fat,  nor  has  there  been  any  solicitation  on  the  part  of  such  manufacturers 
for  us  to  furnish  any  other  than  the  two  above-named  products. 
Yours,  truly, 

BOYD,  LUNHAM  &  CO., 

Per  WM.  GROH,  Superintendent. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  It  must  be  understood  that  I  am  not  talking 
to  you  as  a  scientific  man.  I  am  telling  you  these  things  from  the 
records.  When  it  comes  to  science  it  is  getting  a  little  out  of  my  line. 

Bepresentatiye  BAKER.  Will  you  please  give  me  again  the  page  of 
that  investigation  from  which  you  were  reading? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  This  is  Senate  Document  2346.  I  read  from 
page  47. 

Representative  BAKER.  When  were  those  hearings  had;  during 
what  Congress  and  session? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  This  is  Senate  Miscellaneous  Document  No. 
2346  of  the  first  session  of  the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  1885-86,  volume  5. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  That  was  before  what  was  known  as  the 
Mason  Committee,  I  believe? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  No,  no ;  that  was  the  investigation  made  by 
a  joint  committee  of  Congress  with  a  view  of  determining  whether  or 

(*176) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  759 

not  they  would  enact  this  original  legislation.  It  is  the  foundation  on 
which  the  whole  thing  is  built. 

Representative  ALLEN.  There  is  one  other  question  I  would  like  to 
ask,  if  you  will  permit  ine.  I  will  ask  you  to  state  to  the  committee  if 
you  have  any  information  as  to  the  extent  of  the  consumption  of  this 
article  by  the  public  and  by  what  classes  of  people  it  is  generally  con- 
sumed, if  you  know  from  your  personal  knowledge  or  from  matters  in 
connection  with  your  department. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  It  is  pretty  hard  for  me  to  give  any  opinion 
which  would  be  worth  anything  on  that  subject.  I  think  everybody 
buys  it.  I  think  it  is  clean  and  reputable. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Do  you  regard  its  manufacture  as  a  fixed 
industry  in  the  country,  which  ought  not  to  be  abolished? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  sir,  I  certainly  do;  and,  if  I  may  ven- 
ture this  statement  (you  will  pardon  me  if  I  go  beyond  what  1  should 
say),  I  will  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  any  legislation  which  you  may 
enact  here  with  respect  to  stamping  or  identifying  as  an  entity  the 
quantity  of  oleomargarine  that  goes  into  the  hands  of  A,  B,  or  C  to  be 
used  on  their  tables  will  give  it  a  badge  of  credibility  that  it  would  not 
get  anywhere  else. 

The  tobacco  manufacturers  would  pay  for  all  the  marks,  brands,  and 
stamps  that  are  on  their  tobacco  simply  for  the  purpose  of  having  it 
under  Government  inspection. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Do  you  believe  that  this  amendment  you 
recommend  would  protect  the  public  against  the  fraudulent  sale  of 
oleomargarine? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  BAILEY.  You  think  it  would? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Now,  I  do  not  say  it  would  completely  pro- 
tect it.  Of  course,  we  have  very  strict  laws  with  respect  to  the  tax  on 
distilled  spirits ;  the  tax  is  very  high  and  the  law  is  drastic  and  harsh, 
and  yet — — 

Representative  WADSWORTH.  And  there  is  a  law  against  murder,  is 
there  not?  But  murder  is  committed. 

Commissioner  Wilson.  Yes;  and  yet  there  are  murders.  But  I  say 
to  you  that  the  percentage  of  fraud  would  be  extremely  small  if  that 
were  done. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Mr.  Wilson,  a  statement  was  made  here  by 
the  friends  of  the  dairy  interests  that  90  per  cent  of  the  oleomargarine 
marketed  in  this  country  was  sold  as  butter.  Do  you  believe  that  is 
true? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  say  it  is  nearer  10  per  cent. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  What  was  that  question? 

Representative  BAILEY.  The  question  was  that  it  had  been  stated 
to  this  committee  that  90  per  cent  of  the  oleomargarine  sold  in  this 
country  was  sold  as  butter. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Of  course  I  can  not  tell,  but  I  do  not  think 
that  is  accurate.  I  simply  do  not  think  so.  That  is  my  honest  convic- 
tion about  it. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Do  you  think  that  this  law  is  enforced  as 
well  as  any  other  internal-revenue  law? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  With  respect  to  collecting  the  tax,  better; 
with  respect  to  the  incidental  matters,  so  far  as  the  pure- food  law  is 
concerned,  no. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Mr.  Commissioner,  I  would  like  to' ask 
you  a  question  a  little  off  of  this  line;  I  do  not  know  whether  you  know 

(*1T7) 


760  OLEOMABG  ABINE. 

anything  about  it  or  not.  Do  you  know  anything  about  a  renovated 
butter?" 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  been  after  those  people 
lately,  and  taken  every  one  of  them  out  of  the  oleo  factories.  They 
have  tried  to  renovate  butter  at  some  of  these  factories,  as  well  as  other 
places,  and  I  have  stopped  it. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  I  wish  you  would  tell  us  about  that. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  do  not  know  much  about  it,  except  that 
they  appeared  to  have  wagons  over  the  cities,  and,  indeed,  at  various 
country  places  where  they  have  this  product,  and  it  gets  spoiled;  and 
they  gathered  the  stuff  in  and  sent  it  to  these  renovating  establish- 
ments. One  or  two  of  the  oleomargarine  factories  had  arranged  an 
annex  of  that  kind,  and  I  cleaned  them  out. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Talking  about  frauds  upon  butter,  or 
upon  butter  eaters,  which  do  you  regard  as  the  greatest  fraud  being 
perpetrated  now,  and  the  most  plausible  one,  the  one  most  easy  to 
mislead  people — oleomargarine  or  renovated  butter! 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Well,  I  hardly  think  any  idea  which  I  might 
have  on  that  subject  could  be  of  much  importance  or  weight.  The 
oleomargarine  factories  are  wonderfully  cleanly  conducted  affairs.  If 
you  gentlemen  will  send  a  committee  in  among  them  without  their 
knowing  it,  and  take  hold  of  the  matter  yourselves,  you  will  find  that 
to  be  the  truth.  They  are  wonderfully  cleanly  conducted  affairs. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Now,  I  have  understood — and  I  do  not 
know  but  what  you  may  have  had  occasion  to  find  out  something  about 
it — that  they  send  around  and  get  the  old  rancid  butter  from  restau- 
rants and  hotels  and  other  places,  and  carry  it  up  to  a  central  place,  and 
"  renovate"  it,  as  they  call  it. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  they  do.  That  is  not  denied.  It  is  an 
industry. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  It  is  an  industry. 

Representative  ALLEN.  And  that  material  is  then  sold  for  butter! 

Commissioner  WILSON.  i"es ;  but  so  far  as  I  know,  the  dairy  people 
have  nothing  to  do  with  that.  That  is  a  business  as  distinct  from  them, 
I  presume,  as  it  is  from  the  oleomargarine  business.  I  do  not  know 
that  they  have  anything  to  do  with  it.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  You  stated  a  while  ago  that  the  10-per-cent 
tax  would  practically  drive  oleomargarine  out  of  the  market.  On  what 
ground  do  you  base  this  opinion  ! 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  do  not  think  they  could  produce  it. 

Beprestative  HAUGEN.  What  makes  you  think  so! 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  do  not  think  a  good  class  of  oleomargarine 
can  be  produced  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  consumer  with  that 
tax.  Now,  I  have  not  any  data  at  hand — I  have  some  at  the  office,  but 
none  here — upon  that  question;  so  that  I  do  not  like  to  talk  about  it  with- 
out being  better  informed. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  But  in  order  to  express  an  opinion  of  that 
sort  you  would  naturally  have  some  knowledge  of  the  cost  of  the  pro- 
duction of  oleomargarine,  and  also  the  present  or  average  market  price 
of  butter! 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  Have  you  any  information  as  to  the  cost 
of  oleomargarine,  uncolored!  I  believe  the  evidence  before  this  com- 
mittee is  that  its  cost  is  about  8  cents  a  pound. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  have  it  down  at  the  office. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  Can  you  not  give  us  an  estimate! 

(*178) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  761 

Commissioner  WILSON.  1  should  not  vary  it  much  from  what  you 
have  stated. 

Eepresentative  HAUGBN.  Eight  cents  a  pound! 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes;  I  think  so. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  Now,  then,  what  is  creamery  butter  selling 
for  in  the  markets,  or  what  has  been  its  average  cost  during  the  past 
year? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  do  not  know  what  the  average  cost  of  but- 
ter would  be ;  possibly  25  cents. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  The  proposed  tax  is  10  cents,  which,  added 
to  the  8  cents  per  pound,  would  be  18  cents! 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes. 

Eepreseutative  HAUGEN.  It  is  claimed  that  oleomargarine  is  as 
wholesome  and  as  good  an  article  as  butter,  and  that  it  is  worth  as  much, 
and  sells  for  as  much.  Now,  then,  10  and  8  are  18,  representing  the  cost 
price  of  oleomargarine,  according  to  those  figures,  while  the  average 
price  of  butter  is  put  at  25  cents.  How  do  you  arrive  at  the  conclu- 
sion, from  those  figures,  that  this  act  would  practically  drive  the  oleo- 
margarine manufacturers  out  of  business? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  In  the  first  place,  you  rob  it  of  its  pleasant 
aspect  to  the  eye.  You  do  not  like  to  buy  lardy-looking  stuff  for  your 
table.  It  would  be  a  worse  badge  upon  it  than  to  stamp  the  word 
"Oleomargarine"  right  on  it,  if  it  were  colored. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  Yes;  but  under  this  bill  the  paying  of  the 
10  per-  cent  tax  would  permit  the  manufacturers  to  color  their  product 
and  make  it  an  imitation  of  butter,  and  then  it  would  cost  only  18  cents 
per  pound,  while  you  place  the  cost  price  of  butter  at  25  cents.  That 
leaves  a  difference  of  7  cents  per  pound  in  the  price  of  the  two  commodi- 
ties. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Well,  I  do  not  know  about  the  average  cost 
of  butter ;  I  do  not  want  to  undertake  to  speak  definitely  on  that  point, 
because  I  am  not  acquainted  with  it. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Mr.  Commissioner,  in  the  price  of  oleo- 
margarine which  you  have  given,  have  you  included  the  various  taxes 
and  licenses  which  may  be  paid  along  the  line  in  order  to  comply  with 
the  laws  governing  its  sale,  or  have  you  simply  given  the  cost  of  manu- 
facture? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  It  is  simply  the  cost  of  manufacture  which 
has  been  referred  to,  as  I  understand — the  special  taxes  and  the  pound 
tax.  The  special  taxes,  together  with  the  pound  tax,  I  presume  add 
about  50  per  cent  to  the  cost  of  production,  I  should  say.  There  are 
7,000  dealers  in  the  United  States  at  $48  each. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Eetail  dealers? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Then  there  are  the  wholesale  licenses? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  The  wholesale  license  fee  is  $480,  and  there 
are  300  or  400  wholesale  dealers. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  And  the  various  States  have  legislation 
on  the  point,  too,  have  they  not? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  And  then  there  are  the  manufacturers,  25  or 
30  of  them,  who  pay  $600  each. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  How  many  wholesale  dealers  are  there? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  would  not  like  to  say;  I  have  not  the  exact 
figures  in  my  mind.  There  are  a  good  many. 

Eepreseutative  HENRY.  Mr.  Commissioner,  the  reduction  of  the  tax 
proposed  by  the  bill  this  committee  has  been  considering,  from  2  cents 

(*179) 


762  OLEOMARGARINE. 

a  pound  to  a  quarter  of  a  cent  per  pound,  would  of  course  reduce  the 
cost  of  uncolored  oleomargarine  to  the  consumer  by  just  that  amount, 
would  it  not? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Oh,  yes ;  yes  sir. 

Representative  HENRY.  And  would  it  materially  interfere  with  the 
consumption  of  oleomargarine  as  used  for  cooking  purposes  in  hotels, 
saloons,  etc.?  Would  it  not  be  a  positive  benefit  to  the  laboring  man 
who  uses  oleomargarine  to  have  the  price  reduced  practically  2  cents  a 
pound? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Well,  indeed,  I  hardly  think  so.  I  think  the 
laboring  man  has  a  right  to  have  his  eye  tickled  about  the  color  of 
his  butter  just  as  well  as  we  have. 

Representative  HENRY.  It  is  not  a  question  of  tickling  his  eye,  but 
a  question  of  whether  he  is  to  be  deceived  or  not.  Is  the  colored 
oleomargarine  any  the  less  palatable? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Oh,  no;  I  presume  it  would  be  just  as  pala- 
table, sir,  uncolored  as  colored.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  its  appear- 
ance. I  think  the  same  result  would  follow  prohibiting  the  coloring  of 
butter  that  would  follow  prohibiting  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine;  it 
would  hurt  its  sale  in  the  same  way.  It  would  make  it  objectionable. 
The  two  products  stand  exactly  on  the  same  basis  as  far  as  that  is 
concerned. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Following  that  line,  I  understand  you  to  say, 
Mr.  Wilson,  that  you  believe  this  tax  on  colored  oleomargarine  would 
entirely  prohibit  its  manufacture.  That  being  the  case,  the  demand 
being  so  decreased,  there  would  not  be  enough  demand  to  justify  the 
manufacture  of  uncolored  oleomargarine,  would  there? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Those  are  abstract  questions  about  which  I 
do  not  like  to  venture  an  opinion.  You  gentlemen  who  are  farmers 
know  more  about  it  than  I  do. 

Representative  HENRY.  You  do  not  for  a  moment  suppose  that  the 
practical  abolishment  of  the  tax  on  uncolored  oleomargarine,  or  its 
reduction  from  2  cents  a  pound  to  one- quarter  of  a  cent  a  pound 
would  prevent  the  consumption  of  oleomargarine  to  a  very  great  extent, 
do  you  ? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  You  would  have  to  commence  de  novo  and 
educate  the  people.  They  started  in  with  it  colored,  in  the  first  place. 
I  presume  everybody  was  afraid  of  it,  even  colored,  in  the  first  place; 
and  now,  if  you  take  the  coloring  away,  you  will  have  to  start  again 
and  get  the  people  acquainted  with  it,  and  make  them  know  that  it 
tastes  just  as  good,  although  it  does  not  look  so  well. 

Representative  HENRY.  But  the  party  using  it  for  cooking  purposes 
would  not  pay  the  extra  2  cents  a  pound  for  uncolored  oleomargiue? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  would  or  not.  My 
judgment  is  that  such  a  law  would  be  a  serious  blow  at  the  industry. 
That  is  simply  my  opinion. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question  there, 
Mr.  Commissioner.  Have  you  read  the  Grout  bill,  which  is  now  pending 
before  the  committee? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Is  there  anything  in  that  bill  which  would 
enable  an  internal-revenue  officer  to  punish  a  man  guilty  of  deception  in 
selling  oleomargarine  as  butter,  any  more  than  the  existing  law? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  think  not.  I  think  the  difference  would 
simply  be  in  reducing  the  number  of  people  who  would  do  so,  and  possi- 
bly reducing  the  number  of  people  who  would  invite  it.  It  would  change 

(*180) 


OLEOMARGARINE .  763 

the  condition  of  things  from  what  exists  now;  there  is  no  question  about 
that,  because  I  think  the  sale  of  oleomargarine,  not  for  butter,  but  the 
sale  of  oleomargarine  blank,  is  largely  induced  by  the  purchaser. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  He  simply  does  not  want  his  neighbor  to 
know  that  it  is  oleomargarine  that  he  is  buying,  although  he  knows  it 
very  well? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  That  is  it  exactly. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  As  to  the  coloring  of  butter  and  oleomarga- 
rine, you  put  the  two  on  the  same  basis,  as  I  understand? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Oh,  coloring  accomplishes  the  same  thing 
for  each. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  it  as  necessary  for  butter  to 
be  colored  as  for  oleomargarine  to  be  colored — and  what  difference 
would  you  find  in  that  respect,  as  between  seasons,  in  butter? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  There  are  certain  seasons  of  the  year,  you 
know,  when  butter  is  nearly  white;  and  there  are  certain  seasons  of  the 
year  when,  by  reason  of  the  food  consumed  by  the  animal,  the  butter 
is  almost  the  color  of  the  commercial  product.  Indeed,  I  think  (though 
I  do  not  want  to  say  much  about  it,  because  I  do  not  know  much  about 
it)  the  dairyman  can  feed  his  cows  so  as  to  color  the  butter.  I  may  be 
wrong  about  it,  but  that  is  my  impression. 

Representative  WILSON.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  are  not  butter  and 
oleomargarine  both  colored  for  the  same  purpose? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Oh,  yes;  that  is  my  understanding  of  it. 

Representative  HENRY.  You  would  make  this  distinction,  would 
you — that  one  is  a  natural  color,  and  the  other  is  entirely  artificial? 

Representative  WILSON.  But  one  is  a  natural  color  for  a  very  short 
while  only,  of  course. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  They  can  feed  the  cattle  so  as  to  get  the 
desired  color  in  the  butter,  I  think,  but  not  so  uniformly,  and  in  a 
state  so  pleasing  to  the  eye,  as  by  using  coloring  matter  in  the  butter. 

Representative  HENRY.  The  demand  for  that  uniform  and  pleasing 
appearance  to  the  eye,  to  which  you  allude  so  pathetically,  is  largely 
an  originated  taste,  an  acquired  taste,  is  it  not?  If  people  were  accus- 
tomed to  use  white  butter  or  white  oleomargarine,  there  would  be  no 
necessity  for  the  use  of  coloring  matter. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  say,  if  you  commence  and  educate  again, 
yes,  sir;  most  certainly.  I  do  not  think  it  would  hurt  me  at  all.  I 
could  eat  white  butter.  I  have  eaten  it  many  a  time.  I  have  churned 
many  a  churning  of  it  myself. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  You  stated  a  while  ago  that  these  special 
taxes  added  50  per  cent,  I  believe,  to  the  cost  of  the  oleomargarine. 
Did  1  understand  you  correctly? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Well,  my  recollection  is  that  the  special  tax 
receipts  would  not  be  that  much.  Twice  8  is  16.  The  pound  tax  from 
oleomargarine  last  year  must  have  amounted  to  about  sixteen  or  seven- 
teen hundred  thousand  dollars,  or  somewhere  along  there. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  was  $1,660,000. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  You  see,  there  is  between  three  and  four 
hundred  thousand  dollars  of  special  taxes.  The  number  of  special 
tax-payers  has  been  doubled  in  the  last  year.  We  had  a  little  more 
money  to  use  for  that  purpose,  and  we  have  done  a  good  deal  of  work 
along  that  line.  The  result  has  been  that  we  have  doubled  the  number 
of  retail  oleomargarine  dealers  in  the  country. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  That  would  not  be  much  over  2  cents  a 
pound,  would  it  ?  According  to  those  figures,  the  cost  of  manufacturing 


764  OLEOMARGARINE. 

oleomargarine  would  be  about  4  cents  a  pound,  if  your  statements  are 
correct,  if  the  2  cents  a  pound  is  50  per  cent  of  cost? 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  I  understood  him  to  say  that  that  was 
the  amount  collected — that  the  tax  was  2  cents  a  pound. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  sir.  With  a  tax  of  2  cents  a  pound, 
the  $1,600,000  collected  would  represent  about  80,000,000  pounds. 

Kepresentative  WILLIAMS.  That  does  not  include  these  licenses  and 
other  expenses,  does  it? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  No.  Between  three  and  four  hundred  thou- 
sand dollars  of  the  $1,600,000  comes  from  the  special  taxes. 

Kepresentative  HAUGEN.  That  would  be  about  2J  per  cent,  would  it 
not? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  sir;  something  like  that. 

Kepresentative  HAUGEN.  Then,  if  that  is  50  per  cent  of  the  cost,  the 
cost  of  the  oleomargarine  to  the  manufacturer  would  be  about  4J  cents 
a  pound. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  8  cents  which 
has  been  referred  to  includes  the  pound  tax  and  the  special  tax,  or  not. 
Of  course  if  it  does  that  would  mean  that  the  actual  cost  of  manufac- 
ture was  5  and  a  fraction  or  6  cents  a  pound.  If  it  does  not  it  means 
that  the  cost  is  10  cents  and  a  fraction.  I  do  not  know  anything  about 
that  subject;  I  have  not  gone  into  it. 

Kepresentative  BAILEY.  Have  you  seen  the  bill  introduced  recently 
by  Mr.  Wadsworth  along  this  line? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Do  you  think  that  bill  will  meet  the  require- 
ments of  protecting  the  people  as  against  fraud  and  the  fraudulent  sale 
of  oleomargarine? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  do,  in  the  fullest  possible  way,  and  still 
allow  them  to  manufacture  oleomargarine. 

Kepresentative  WRIGHT.  As  I  understand  it,  the  figures  which  you 
have  given  of  8  cents  a  pound,  cost  of  manufacture,  and  also  in  regard 
to  the  50  per  cent  which  you  mentioned,  are  only  given  according  to  your 
opinion,  without  having  the  figures  before  you? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  that  is  all,  we  thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Wilson, 
for  your  information. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  I  have  brought  here  Dr.  Crampton,  pur  chem- 
ist, to  whom  I  refer  all  scientific  matters,  if  the  gentlemen  wish  to  ask 
him  anything  on  this  subject. 

STATEMENT  OF  LE,  CHAELES  A.  CRAMPTON,  CHEMIST,  INTEENAL- 
EEVENUE  BUEEAU,  TEEASUEY  DEPAETMENT. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Doctor,  what  position  do  you  occupy  ? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  I  am  the  chemist  of  the  Internal-Revenue  Office. 
*•  Kepresentative  ALLEN.  What  have  you  under  your  immediate  super- 
vision or  care  in  that  line? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  I  have  the  investigation  of  products  which  are  sub- 
ject to  an  internal-revenue  tax. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Oleomargarine? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  Oleomargarine,  and  other  products. 

Representative  ALLEN.  If  you  have  had  any  occasion  to  investigate 
or  make  an  analysis  of  oleomargarine,  I  wish  you  would  state  to  the 

(*182) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  765 

committee  to  what  extent  your  researches  have  gone,  and  what  have 
been  their  results  ? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  The  great  bulk  of  my  work  on  that  product  is  in  the 
direction  of  determining  whether  a  suspected  sample  is  oleomargarine 
or  butter.  That  constitutes  the  greater  part,  nine-tenths  or  ninety- 
nine  one-hundredths,  of  my  work  in  connection  with  the  product.  I 
have,  however,  occasionally  made  a  special  investigation  of  the  article, 
as  to  the  ingredients  which  are  used  in  it.  and  so  forth. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Do  you  know  from  what  manufacturer  the 
oleomargarine  which  you  have  examined  has  come  or  of  what  factory 
it  was  the  product? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  Not  in  all  cases.  I  do,  however,  in  the  case  of  these 
samples  which  I  have  in  my  hand,  which  are,  you  might  say,  a  supple- 
ment to  the  report  of  Revenue  Agent  McGinnis. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Just  go  ahead  and  make  your  statement  in 
that  regard  in  such  way  as  you  desire. 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  These  samples  were  sent  in  by  the  revenue  agent  at 
the  time  he  made  his  investigation  of  the  factories  in  Chicago,  and  are 
samples  which  he  took  of  the  materials  which  entered  into  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine  at  these  factories  at  the  time  he  made  his 
investigation.  These  materials  are  probably  quite  well  known  to  the 
committee  as  the  ordinary  ingredients  of  oleomargarine.  Three  of 
these  samples  came  from  one  place  and  two  from  another. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Designate  the  places. 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  Do  you  want  the  name  of  the  manufacturers  from 
whom  they  came? 

Representative  ALLEN.  Yes. 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  The  three  samples  came  from  Hammond  Company, 
Hammond,  Ind.,  near  Chicago.  The  two  samples  came  from  the  Inter- 
national Packing  Company,  of  Chicago. 

The  three  samples  are,  respectively,  oleo  oil,  neutral  lard,  and  cotton- 
seed oil.  These  I  have  examined  with  a  view  simply  of  determining 
whether  they  are  or  are  not  what  they  are  represented  to  be,  and  as  to 
their  general  character  as  ingredients  of  oleomargarine,  whether  they 
are  or  are  not  fit  materials  to  use  for  that  purpose.  This  examina- 
tion I  made  under  the  direction  of  the  commissioner,  simply  as  a  sup- 
plement to  the  revenue  agent's  reports;  and  I  may  say  that  these  sam- 
ples speak  for  themselves,  without  any  investigation.  They  seem  to  be 
wholesome  and  palatable,  and  proper  materials  for  the  production  of 
this  commodity,  the  manufacture  of  which  is  licensed  by  law,  and  with 
which  we  have  to  deal.  If  the  committee  cares  to  see  these  samples  I 
will  be  very  glad  to  exhibit  them. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Do  you  find  anything  in  the  composition  of 
those  samples  which  render  them  deleterious  as  food  for  the  human 
stomach? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  No,  I  do  not;  no,  sir.  Of  course,  the  investigation 
of  them  which  I  made  was  not  a  searching  bacteriological  investiga- 
tion or  a  very  extensive  investigation;  because  they  are  articles  which 
are  pretty  well  known,  and  have  been  investigated  a  great  deal. 

Representative  ALLEN.  What  is  the  relative  proportion  of  bacteria 
found  in  oleomargarine  and  butter? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  I  am  not  able  to  speak  on  that  subject  as  to  my  own 
investigations.  I  have  not  made  investigations  along  that  line. 

Representative  ALLEN.  But  you  give  it  to  this  committee  as  your 
opinion,  as  an  officer  of  the  Government  in  charge  of  that  duty,  and 

(*183) 


766  OLEOMARGARINE. 

disinterested  in  the  matter,  that  oleomargarine  is  a  healthful  article  of 
food  consumption? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that.  As 
the  Commissioner  said  in  his  remarks,  we  base  the  action  of  the  office 
largely  upon  the  extensive  investigation  which  was  made  in  the  year 
1886  into  the  character  of  this  product  as  a  food  material.  At  that 
time  the  opinion  of  the  leading  scientists  of  the  country  was,  as  the 
Commissioner  has  stated,  in  favor  of  the  product — that  it  was  not,  in 
general,  a  material  which  should  be  condemned  as  an  article  of  food. 
And  while  I  have  kept  watch  of  literature  on  such  matters  since  that 
time,  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  chemical  literature  or  any  patent 
bearing  upon  the  subject  which  has  led  me  to  suppose  that  the  process 
of  manufacture  has  changed  radically  in  any  way  from  the  time  the 
original  bill  was  passed. 

Representative  COONEY.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question  for  my 
own  information.  I  was  not  in  here  when  the  Commissioner  commenced 
his  remarks.  When  I  came  in  he  was  speaking  with  reference  to  that 
Senate  document,  and  stating  that  what  he  read  was  the  substance  of 
the  foundation  upon  which  the  internal  revenue  law  was  based — and 
that  was  in  regard  to  these  fats  which  are  used  in  the  production  of 
oleomargarine.  It  was  stated  that  if  they  were  permitted  to  remain 
unused  in  the  product  for  a  little  while,  or  placed  in  vessels  which  were 
not  absolutely  untainted,  they  would  become  an  obnoxious 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  "Offensive"  was  the  word  he  used. 

Representative  COONEY.  (Continuing.)  An  offensive  product.  That 
is  your  experience,  likewise,  is  it? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  COONEY.  Now,  what  I  would  like  to  know  is  what 
means  the  Government  has  of  knowing  that  this  fat  is  used  at  the 
proper  time  and  in  the  proper  way  by  the  manufacturers  of  oleomar- 
garine ? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  Well,  I  presume  it  has  no  means  of  ascertaining  the 
condition  of  the  materials,  except  that  the  factories  are  open  at  all 
times  to  the  inspection  and  supervision  of  the  internal-revenue  officers. 

Commissioner  WILSON.  Pardon  me,  but  may  I  insert  a  few  words 
right  there?  The  fact  that  "  the  first  law  of  nature  is  self-preservation" 
is  the  answer  to  that  question.  If  the  materials  are  not  used  before 
they  become  rancid,  they  have  lost  their  substance  and  are  forever 
ruined;  so  that  the  manufacturers  can  not  sell  what  they  make  of  such 
materials. 

Representative  WADSWORTH.  It  is  the  same  as  with  cream,  in  butter 
making.  If  your  cream  is  not  used  at  the  proper  time,  at  the  exact 
moment,  your  butter  is  of  an  inferior  quality.  The  same  law  applies  to 
oleomargarine.  If  you  do  not  use  the  materials  at  the  proper  time  the 
manufactured  product  is  of  poor  quality. 

Representative  COONEY.  The  statement  of  the  Commissioner,  then, 
as  I  understand  it,  is  that  the  product,  when  the  materials  were  not 
used  at  the  proper  time,  would  be  offensive  and  obnoxious  in  itself. 

Representative  WILSON.  In  other  words,  it  would  tell  its  own  tale? 

Doctor  CRAMPTON.  Yes;  that  is  the  ground  upon  which  we  have 
always  proceeded.  That  is  just  what  is  stated  in  that  testimony. 

Representative  COONEY.  And  the  process  of  manufacturing  the  oleo- 
margarine out  of  these  fats  at  improper  times  would  not  render  the 
detection  of  that  obnoxious  quality  any  the  less  easy?  Is  that  what  I 
understand. 

(184) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  767 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  I  think  that  is  so. 

Representative  WILSON.  In  other  words,  it  would  not  take  the  offen- 
siveness  away? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  No.  Now,  I  do  not  know  that  such  processes  have 
not  been  perfected;  I  am  not  undertaking  to  say  that.  I  do  not  make 
inspections  of  factories  myself,  and  that  is  a  matter  of  which  I  can  not 
speak  from  my  personal  knowledge.  It  may  be  that  methods  and  proc- 
esses are  used  for  renovating  such  fats.  We  know  that  they  do  reno- 
vate butter.  But  if  such  practices  are  carried  on  they  have  not  come 
to  my  knowledge.  No  such  knowledge  has  come  to  me,  or,  so  far  as  I 
know,  to  the  Internal-Revenue  Office.  We  have  gone  upon  the  suppo- 
sition that  this  statement  is  true — that  these  fats  can  not,  after  they 
have  once  become  rancid,  be  successfully  renovated  and  reused.  That 
is  the  ground  which  we  have  always  taken.  If  things  have  changed, 
and  if  new  methods  have  been  perfected,  or  if  something  unusual  has 
occurred  in  the  industry  whereby  this  can  be  accomplished,  we  do  not 
know  of  it,  sir;  we  have  no  knowledge  of  it. 

Representative  STOKES.  If  such  processes  had  been  discovered,  is  it 
not  likely  that  in  the  course  of  your  reading  upon  the  subject  some 
information  in  regard  to  them  would  have  come  to  you? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  I  think  so;  yes,  sir. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  The  dairymen  would  have  reported  it  to 
him. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Mr.  Williams,  I  would  suggest  that  the  time 
is  slipping  by,  and  we  have  several  men  yet  to  hear,  some  of  whom  are 
expert  butterine  makers. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Mr.  Commissioner,  I  would  like  to  ask 
you  this  question :  Has  there  been  reported  to  your  office  any  attempt 
to  do  away  with  the  offensiveness  which  would  follow  from  the  stand- 
ing of  these  ingredients? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  No,  sir. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Nothing  of  the  kind  has  been  reported 
by  the  dairy  interests  or  by  anybody  else? 

Commissioner  WILSON.  No,  sir. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  That  is  what  I  want  to  know. 

Representative  BAILEY.  I  will  say  to  the  committee  that  we  have 
here  the  two  expert  butterine  manufacturers  from  Armour  and  Swift's 
great  factories  at  Kansas  City,  who  are  perfectly  familiar  with  the 
manufacture  of  the  product.  If  Dr.  Wiley  will  now  come  before  the 
committee,  we  should  be  glad  to  hear  him  for  just  a  moment,  and  then 
have  him  give  way  to  these  men  who  are  actually  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture of  butterine  in  two  of  the  greatest  manufacturing  establishments 
of  the  world. 

Representative  WILSON.  I  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Crampton  just  one 
more  question.  I  want  to  know,  Doctor  (if  you  know),  what  is  the  dif- 
ference between  butter  and  oleomargarine,  so  far  as  the  chemical  ele- 
ments which  enter  into  each  are  concerned? 

Dr.  CRAMPTON.  They  are  very  much  the  same,  with  the  exception  of 
the  small  amount  of  what  are  called  the  volatile  or  soluble  fatty  acids, 
which  enter  into  butter  and  which  do  not  enter  into  oleomargarine.  The 
great  bulk  of  the  tat  is  of  the  same  composition,  chemically  speaking; 
they  are  both  glycerides.  Of  course,  these  volatile,  fatty  acids  are  very 
important,  however;  they  give  butter  its  flavor  and  taste,  the  r>leasant 
"bouquet,"  you  might  say;  and  that  is  very  important.  There  is  no 
question  about  that. 

(*185) 


768  OLEOMABGARHTE. 

Dr.  Crampton  also  submitted,  as  part  of  his  remarks,  the  following 
letter: 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT, 
OFFICE  OF  COMMISSIONER  OF  INTERNAL  REVENUE, 

Washington,  May  16, 1900. 
The  COMMISSIONER  ow  INTERNAL  REVENUE. 

SIR:* I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  I  have  made  an  examination  of  five  samples 
of  materials  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  sent  in  by  Revenue  Agent 
McGinnis,  and  described  by  him  in  his  two  letters  dated  May  2. 

Nos.  3972,  3973,  and  3974  -vrere  obtained  from  the  G.  H.  Hammond  Company,  manu- 
facturers of  oleomargarine,  Hammond,  Ind. 

Nos.  3975  and  3976  were  obtained  from  the  International  Packing  Company,  manu- 
facturers of  oleomargarine,  Chicago,  111. 

These  samples  are  designated  as  follows: 

No.  3972,  oleo  oil,  from  Hammond. 

No.  3973,  neutral,  from  Hammond. 

No.  3974,  cotton-seed  oil,  from  Hammond. 

No.  3975,  oleo  oil,  International  Packing  Company. 

No.  3976,  neutral  lard,  same. 

I  have  made  chemical  and  microscopical  examination  of  these  samples  and  find 
them  to  be  as  described  on  the  labels  and  the  reports  of  the  agent.  I  find  nothing 
objectionable  about  them,  and  should  consider  them  entirely  fit  for  use  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  oleomargarine. 

Respectfully,  CHARLES  A.  CRAMPTON,  Chemist. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  HARVEY  W.  WILEY,  CHIEF  CHEMIST  UNITED 
STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  Dr.  Wiley,  please  give  your  name  to  the 
stenographer. 

Dr.  WILEY.  My  name  is  H.  W.  Wiley. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  What  position  do  you  hold  in  the  Govern- 
ment, Dr.  Wiley? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  am  chief  chemist  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  component 
parts  of  oleomargarine? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  Will  you  please  tell  the  committee,  in  as 
brief  a  way  as  you  can,  whether  or  not,  in  your  judgment,  it  is  a  whole- 
some article  of  food? 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Before  you  answer  that,  excuse  me  one 
moment  while  I  ask  you  this  question :  Has  not  the  Chemical  Division 
of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  become,  in  a  measure,  the  chemical 
division  of  the  entire  Government?  Are  not  things  sent  to  you  from 
the  other  Departments  to  be  investigated? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  From  the  Treasury  Department  and  else- 
where? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  I  simply  wanted  to  bring  ont  that  fact. 

Dr.  WILEY.  Through  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  we  collaborate 
with  almost  all  the  Departments  of  the  Government,  and  especially  the 
Treasury  Department. 

With  relation  to  the  question  just  asked  Dr.  Crampton,  I  have  here  a 
chart  which  will  show  you  at  a  glance  the  difference  between  butter  and 
some  of  the  other  products.  Butter  is  a  much  more  complex  substance 
than  oleomargarine. 

[At  this  point  Dr.  Wiley  exhibited  a  chart,  of  which  the  following  is 
a  copy:] 

(*186) 


OLEOMAKGARINE. 


769 


Composition  of  butter  fat 


Acids. 

Glycer- 
ides. 

Acids. 

Glycer- 

ides. 

Per  cent. 
1  00 

Per  cent. 
1  04 

Caprio   ...          ............ 

Per  cent. 
32 

Per  cent. 
34 

Oleio 

32.50 

33.95 

.49 

.53 

Steario 

1  83 

1  91 

2  09 

2  32 

Palmitic 

38  61 

40.51 

5.45 

6.23 

Myristio 

9  89 

10  44 

2  57 

2.73 

Total  

94.75 

100.  00 

Dr.  WILEY.  This  table  shows  the  average  composition  of  American 
butter,  a  substance  about  which  the  committee  has  heard  a  great  deal. 
There  may  be  some  terms  there  which  are  not  strictly  legal,  and  which 
some  of  you  who  are  farmers  may  not  thoroughly  understand. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  The  first  item  in  the  column  is  "dioxy- 
stearic  acid.'7  What  kin  is  that  to  stearin? 

Dr.  WILEY.  That  is  a  very  near  relation. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Then  it  appears  that  butter  has  stearin 
in  it? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Oh,  yes.  Yes ;  it  has  quite  a  notable  quantity  of  stearin 
in  it.  It  not  only  has  dioxystearic  acid  but  it  has  stearic  acid  also. 
These  acids  which  compose  butter  are,  in  butter,  combined  with  glyc- 
erin; and  it  is  the  combination  of  glycerin,  which  is  a  base,  with  these 
and  other  acids,  which  makes  the  butter  fat. 

The  acids  are  named  in  the  left-hand  column,  the  percentage  of  the 
acids  in  the  average  butter  in  the  middle  column,  and  the  percentage 
of  the  glycerides  (that  is  the  name  applied  to  the  combination  of  the 
acids  with  the  glycerin)  in  the  right-hand  column. 

Now,  dioxystearic  glyceride  of  stearin — the  proper  name  of  that 
substance  would  be  dioxy stearin,  when  combined  with  glycerin — corn- 
composes  1.04  per  cent  of  the  average  butter  fat. 

Eepresentative  WADSWORTH.  You  state  positively,  then,  that  butter 
contains  stearin,  do  you? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Oh,  yes;  there  is  no  doubt  of  that. 

Kepresentative  WADSWOBTH.  That  is  positive,  is  it? 

Dr.  WILEY.  That  is  absolutely  certain.  It  contains,  altogether,  3 
per  cent  of  stearin. 

Representative  WADSWOBTH.  Three  per  cent  of  stearin? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes;  that  is,  the  two  stearins  together — stearin  and 
dioxystearin — form  3  per  cent  of  butter.  Olein  forms  a  little  over  one- 
third  of  the  whole  quantity  of  butter — that  is,  of  course,  butter  which 
is  free  of  water,  free  of  curd,  and  free  of  salt.  These  are  pure  fats.  In 
butter  they  are  not.  The  butter,  as  it  goes  on  the  market,  contains 
about  12  per  cent  of  water  and  2  per  cent  of  curds,  and  the  amount  of 
salt  which  it  is  desired  to  put  in  it.  Some  people  want  more  and  some 
less;  but  this  table  shows  the  composition  of  the  pure  fats  which  com- 
pose the  butter. 

Representative  WADSWORTH.  What  relation  does  oleic  acid  bear  to 
oleo  oil,  which  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  butterine? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Oleo  oil  is  largely  pure  olein ;  not  altogether,  but  prac- 
tically so.  Cotton  oil  is  largely  olein  and  liuoleine  and  the  olein  in 
butter  is  of  exactly  the  same  composition  as  the  olein  in  cotton- seed  oil. 
Olein,  wherever  it  occurs,  whether  in  animal  or  vegetable  products,  has 
the  same  composition  j  and  palmitin  has  the.  same  composition  wherever 
it  occurs. 


'S.  Rep.  204J 


(*187) 


770  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Bepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Will  yon  explain  what  is  meant  by  the 
figures  opposite  "oleic,"  nnder  the  head  of  "glycerides?" 

Dr.  WILEY.  When  you  combine  glycerin  with  oleic  acid,  it  forms 
oleinj  and  that  is  the  form  in  which  it  exists  in  butter.  Palmitin,  you 
see,  is  the  chief  constituent  of  butter,  making  40 £  per  cent,  altogether, 
of  the  total. 

[At  this  point  Dr.  Wiley  submitted  the  following:] 

Characteristics  of  certain  fats. 

The  composition  of  butter  fats,  as  shown  by  the  latest  analyses,  is  exhibited  in 
the  table. 

It  should  be  mentioned  in  addition  that  butter  fat  has  been  found  to  contain 
minute  quantities  of  coloring  matter — lecithin,  cholesterol  (cholesterin)  and  phy- 
tosterol  (pliytosterin). 

Further,  there  is  evidence  to  show  that  butter  fat  is  not  made  up  of  the  simple 
triglycerides,  but  that  it  contains  mixed  glycerides  of  butyric,  palmitic,  and  oleic 
acids.  Such  compounds  are  represented  by  the  formula — 

C3H6(C4H7O8).(Ci6H3108).(Ci8H33O9). 

The  evidence  of  the  presence  of  these  compounds  is  obtained  in  the  following 
manner : 

"  If  a  mixture  of  tributyrin,  tripalmitin,  and  triolein  be  prepared  and  treated  with 
alcohol,  it  is  possible  to  extract  the  tributyrin  completely.  With  butter  fat,  on  the 
other  hand,  such  an  experiment  can  not  be  made— a  fact  due,  without  doubt,  to  the 
butyric  acid  being  combined  with  certain  higher  fat  acids,  and  the  same  glycerol 
radicle." — (C.  A.  Browne's  recent  article.) 

Beef  fat  and  lard  are  composed  of  a  mixture  of  the  triglycerides  of  stearic,  palmitic, 
and  oleic  acids. 

Cotton  seed  oil  differs  from  the  two  last-named  by  containing  a  large  percentage 
of  the  liquid  glycerides,  olein,  and  linolein.  According  to  Hazura  the  ratio  of  oleic 
to  linoleic  acids  in  cotton-seed  oil  is  3:4.5. 

Several  investigators  have  found  cotton-seed  oil  to  contain  from ' 1£  to  2  per  cent 
of  unsaponifiable  matter.  Blyth  states  that  this  nnsaponifiable  matter  is  phytos- 
terol  (photosterin),  which  has  the  formula  CseH^O  and  resembles  in  many  ways  a 
similar  product  found  in  animal  fats  and  known  as  cholesterol  (cholesterin). 

Eepresentative  WADSWORTH.  What  is  palmitin! 

Dr.  WILEY.  It  is  a  compound  of  palmitic  acid  with  glycerin.  These 
acids,  although  they  have  different  names,  are  very  closely  related. 
This  is  simply  a  series  of  what  is  known  as  the  fatty  acids,  of  which 
vinegar  is  the  beginning.  The  substance  we  know  as  vinegar  is  the 
lowest  of  this  series ;  and  these  fatty  acids  are  formed  by  additions  to 
that  substance.  These  are  the  fatty  acids : 

[At  this  point  Dr.  Wiley  exhibited  two  tables,  of  which  the  following 
are  copies:] 

Fatty  acids. 
Acetic  aoid  series: 

Acetic CsHiOs 

Butyric < C4  H8  O3 

Caproic C«  Hi3O3 

Caprylic C8  Hi6O3 

Capric 

Laurie 

Myristic 

Palmitic 

Stearic 

Arachidio 
Oleic  acid  series : 

Oleic  acid 
Linoleic  acid  series : 

Linoleic  acid 
Glycerin C3H6(OH) 

(*188) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  771 

Glycerides: 

Tributyrin  ....................................................     C3H5(C4H7O.2)3 

Tripalmitin  ................................................. 

Tristearin 

Trioleiu 

Trilinolein  .................  . 

(    C4H703 
Mixed  glyceride  of  butyric,  palmitic,  and  oleic  acids  ..............     C3H5 


Dr.  WILEY.  The  acid  in  vinegar  is  acetic  acid,  which  is  the  first  of 
these  fatty  acids,  and  the  others  which  you  see  there,  of  which  acetic 
acid  is  the  type,  form  the  lowest  members  of  this  series.  Then  comes, 
after  acetic  acid,  butyric  acid,  which  is  the  chief  volatile  acid  of  butter, 
and  gives  it  its  peculiar  flavor;  while  in  goat  milk  the  percentages  of 
caproic,  caprylic,  and  capric  acids  are  quite  large,  and  give  it  that 
strong,  goaty  flavor  which  it  has.  They  are  also  present  in  butter,  but 
in  lesser  quantities.  Now,  these  are  the  other  fatty  acids:  Laurie, 
myristic,  palmitic,  stearic,  and  arachidic  (which  is  found  in  peanuts); 
while  the  oleic  acid  series  (which  is  nearly  related  to  them)  and  linoleic 
acid  (which  exists  in  flaxseed  oil)  form  members  of  a  separate  series 
of  acids. 

Before  leaving  this  table,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  remark- 
able resemblance  between  these  acids,  simply  increasing,  as  they  do,  in 
regular  order  by  the  addition  of  a  molecule  composed  of  hydrogen  and 
carbon  to  each  one.  In  the  table,  "G"  mfeans  carbon,  "H"  means 
hydrogen,  and  "Ow  means  oxygen. 

Look  at  acetic  acid,  which  is  the  acid  in  vinegar.  That  has  two  atoms 
of  carbon,  four  of  hydrogen,  and  two  of  oxygen  in  its  molecule.  Now, 
you  see,  all  the  acids  of  that  series  have  absolutely  the  same  amount 
of  oxygen.  They  all  have  two  atoms  of  oxygen;  but  the  increase  in 
each  case  is  made  by  adding  two  atoms  of  carbon  and  four  atoms  of 
hydrogen.  In  other  words,  if  you  add  C2  and  H4  to  one  acid,  you  get 
the  next.  You  will  see  that  in  every  case  it  is  a  regular  increase  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  series.  If  you  add  C2  H4  to  acetic  acid, 
for  instance,  you  get  butyric  acid.  Add  O2  H4  to  butyric  acid  and  you 
get  caproic  acid,  and  so  on  down  through  the  series.  They  are  all 
related  in  that  step-ladder  way,  one  with  another. 

Representative  BAILEY.  In  regular  numerical  progression  t 

Dr.  WILEY.  In  numerical  progression.  Now,  there  is  no  acetic  acid 
in  butter;  but  the  next  one  to  acetic  acid  (the  vinegar  acid)  is  butyric 
acid,  which  is  the  chief  one  of  these  volatile  acids  in  butter.  You  see, 
there  is  6.23  per  cent  of  butyric  acid  in  butter.  Now,  the  goaty  acids, 
which  are  named  from  the  Latin  name  for  u  goat,"  because  they  exist 
largely  in  goat  fat,  are  the  caproic,  caprylic,  and  capric  acids,  the 
caproic  acid  being  the  largest  in  amount,  and  the  others  being  present 
in  small  quantities.  Next  comes  lauric  acid  and  myristic  acid  in  con- 
siderable percentage;  but  the  most  abundant  of  them  are  the  oleic, 
stearic,  and  palmitic  acids  belonging  to  the  upper  series.  The  stearic 
acid  of  the  upper  series  is  the  smallest  in  quantity  and  the  palmitic 
acid  the  largest  in  quantity  in  butter  fat. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Is  palmitic  acid  named  from  palm  oil! 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes;  palmitic  acid  exists  largely  in  palm  oil;  hence  the 
name.  Now,  so  far  as  wholesomeness  is  concerned,  these  bodies  bear 
practically  the  same  relation  to  the  digestive  organism,  with  this  excep- 
tion, that  the  lower  acids  are  more  easily  decomposed,  and  hence,  under 
the  influence  of  the  ferments  which  produce  digestion  the  presumption 
is  that  they  digest  more  rapidly.  This  is  exactly  what  I  said  in  my 

(*189) 


772  OLEOMARG  ARINE. 

testimony  beibre  the  Senate  committee.  They  asked  me  if  I  thought 
oleomargarine  was  as  digestible  as  butter.  I  do  not  think  it  is.  I  do 
not  think  it  digests  so  well  as  butter,  because  it  contains  more  of  the 
higher  series  of  acids,  and  practically  Done  of  the  lower  series,  which 
are  more  easily  decomposed  under  the  influence  of  ferments.  All  diges- 
tion is  fermentation. 

Some  one  has  spoken  about  the  bacteria.  We  have,  unfortunately, 
a  prejudice  against  bacteria  in  this  country.  As  a  matter  of  fact  if  it 
were  not  for  bacteria  we  would  all  speedily  die;  we  would  have  no 
agriculture,  no  manufactures,  and  no  human  beings.  The  bacteria  are 
essential  to  all  kinds  of  life,  and  hence  the  fact  that  a  food  contains  or 
does  not  contain  bacteria  is  not  a  measure  of  its  wholesomeness.  The 
most  wholesome  foods,  such  as  milk  and  butter,  often  contain  the 
largest  number  of  bacteria. 

Now,  butter  is  perfectly  full  of  bacteria,  teeming  with  bacteria,  while 
oleomargarine,  properly  made,  has  practically  only  the  bacteria  which 
come  from  the  milk  or  cream  used  in  its  manufacture.  It  is,  therefore, 
a  substance  which  naturally  keeps  much  longer  than  butter,  because  of 
the  absence  of  the  ferments  which  decompose  the  latter,  so  that  is 
rather  against  its  digestibility,  because  the  ferments  are  essential  to 
all  digestion. 

Now,  in  oleomargarine  you  have  practically  tristearin,  triolein,  and 
tripalmitin.  Those  are  the  three  chief  constituents  of  oleomargarine, 
because  all  the  elements  which  enter  into  the  composition  of  oleomar- 
garine are  rich  in  those  three  bodies.  The  oleo  oil,  the  neutral  lard, 
and  the  cotton-seed  oil  all  contain  almost  exclusively  these  high  glycer- 
ides,  and  very  little,  a  mere  trace,  of  the  lower  glycerides.  I  have  never 
conducted  any  digestion  experiments — I  have  digested  oleomargarine 
myself  often,  I  am  sure,  in  the  ordinary  way,  but  without  giving  it  any 
scientific  control 

Representative  ALLEN.  What  is  the  result  of  your  experiments  as 
to  digestion? 

Dr.  WILEY.  My  impression  in  regard  to  the  digestibility  of  butter  as 
compared  to  oleomargarine  is  formed  from  a  purely  theoretical  stand- 
point, without  having  tried  experiments  on  human  beings  and  noted 
the  time  of  digestion,  because  I  do  not  know  that  that  has  been  accom- 
plished, and  more  than  that  the  actual  time  of  digestion  is  a  matter  of 
very  little  consequence,  provided  the  food  is  digested.  In  fact  it  is  a 
very  good  thing  that  we  do  not  digest  all  our  food  instantaneously, 
because  otherwise  we  would  be  hungry  after  one  meal  before  we  would 
get  the  next.  The  fact  that  a  food  is  slow  of  digestion,  like  fruit,  for 
instance,  is  no  reason  that  it  is  unwholesome.  No  one  would  say  that 
meat  is  necessarily  more  wholesome  than  fruit  because  it  is  more  easily 
digested.  You  can  digest  meat  in  much  less  time  than  you  can  digest 
fruit,  and  yet  nobody  claims  that  fruits  are  unwholesome. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  would  say,  then,  that  butter  is  more 
quickly  digested  than  oleomargarine! 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  believe  it  is  more  easily  digested;  that  it  requires  less 
effort. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  think  that  is  the  reasonable  inference? 

Dr.  WILEY.  From  a  chemical  study  of  the  composition  of  butter,  it 
is  reasonable  to  infer  that  it  requires  less  effort  on  the  part  of  the  vital 
organs  to  ferment  the  butter,  and  that  is  the  reason  why  I  say  that  I 
believe  butter  is  a  more  digestible  substance,  more  easily  digested, 
more  quickly  digested  than  oleomargarine. 

Now,  the  value  of  a  food  is  measured  solely  by  two  standards.  First, 

(*190) 


OLEOM  AKttARINE. 


773 


its  palatability,  and,  second,  its  nutritive  properties.  You  need  not  try 
to  convince  human  beings  that  palatability  is  not  an  element  in  nutri- 
tion, because  it  is,  and  yet  you  get  a  great  deal  more  out  of  a  food  if  it 
is  palatable  in  its  taste  and  attractive  in  its  appearance,  because  the 
attitude  of  the  digestive  organs  changes  absolutely  with  the  appear- 
ance of  the  food.  If  you  were  to  put  butter  up  in  the  form  of  ink  it 
might  be  just  as  digestible,  and  all  that,  and  yet  it  would  not  be  so 
useful  as  a  food.  The  appearance  of  a  food  has  a  great  deal  to  do  with 
the  attitude  of  the  digestive  organs  toward  it. 

A  MEMBER.  It  is  simply  a  reflex  action  from  it? 

Dr.  WILEY  (continuing).  Yes;  because  the  mind,  the  mental  atti- 
tude, influences  the  secretion  of  the  ferments  which  produce  the  diges- 
tion, and  hence  we  must  have  some  regard  to  that  appearance. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  That  is  so  true,  Professor,  is  it  not,  that 
sometimes  when  a  person  takes  a  prejudice  against  a  particular  article 
of  food  it  will  make  him  vomit  if  he  attempts  to  eat  it? 

Dr.  WILEY.  That  is  very  often  the  case.  That  is  due  to  his  mental 
attitude.  We  all  have  our  idiosyncrasies. 

I  would  like  to  say  that  we  have  studied  in  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture for  seventeen  years,  since  I  have  been  the  chief  chemist  of  that 
Department,  the  subject  of  food  adulteration;  and,  among  others,  this 
substitution  of  oleomargarine  for  butter  is  one  of  the  chief  items  of  study 
which  we  have  undertaken.  My  own  personal  attitude  is  perfectly 
well-known.  I  think  that  anyone  who  sells  an  article  for  what  it  is  not 
is  obtaining  money  under  false  pretenses.  I  believe  it  is  a  crime,  a 
criminal  ofl'ense;  and  I  believe  that  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter 
is  a  criminal  offense,  and  should  be  prosecuted  as  such.  The  Commis- 
sioner of  Internal  Revenue  says  he  gets  the  money  out  of  it.  That  is 
very  well  from  his  point  of  view;  he  said  he  did  not  execute  the  law 
from  the  pure-food  point  of  view.  But  what  we  want  is  a  law  which 
will  be  executed  from  the  pure-food  point  of  view,  so  that  the  man  who 
offends  not  only  has  to  pay  the  tax,  but  has  to  pay  the  penalty  for 
offending  against  the  criminal  code. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Have  you  read  this  Grout  billf 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Is  there  anything  in  the  Grout  bill  which 
executes  the  law,  from  the  pure-food  standpoint,  any  better  than  any 
existing  legislation? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Of  course,  I  am  not  lawyer  enough  to  give  an  opinion 
in  respect  to  that;  but  what  I  want  to  call  to  your  attention  on  this 
point  is  this  matter  of  color. 

Now,  I  am  not  a  prohibitionist  in  regard  to  color.  I  think  if  people 
want  to  color  their  food  with  harmless  materials  it  is  perfectly  proper 
that  they  should  do  so,  provided  the  purchaser  understands  in  buying 
a  food  that  he  is  buying  an  artificially  colored  one,  and  let  him  be  the 
judge.  If  he  wants  the  artificially  colored  article,  all  right. 

I  sent  out  just  a  few  weeks  ago  into  the  markets  of  this  town  to  buy 
some  oleomargarine  and  butter.  I  also  got  a  piece  of  white  silk.  1 
took  the  samples  of  oleomargarine  and  butter  which  I  got,  took  about 
the  amount  which  one  would  use  in  an  ordinary  meal,  and  I  dyed  this 
silk  with  the  coloring  matter  which  these  samples  contained.  I  could 
not  find  on  the  markets  of  this  town  a  sample  of  uncolored  butter,  nor 
of  uncolored  oleomargarine;  but  I  did  find  this — that  instead  of  secur- 
ing uniformity  by  coloring  butter  we  get  the  greatest  disparity  in 
appearance. 

One  argument  which  has  been  advanced  in  support  of  coloring  butter 


774  OLEOMABG  ARTNTB. 

is  that  it  is  made  uniform.  But  the  point  is  not  a  good  one,  because 
the  people  who  color  butter  do  not  color  it  uniformly.  We  find  the  most 
remarkable  variations  in  color.  Some  of  it  is  almost  red  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  [exhibiting  a  piece  of  silk]  is  a  pale  yellow,  closely 
resembling  the  natural  tint  of  butter. 

Now,  these  colors  are  all  coal-tar  dyes,  everyone  of  them.  The 
vegetable  dyes,  like  annotto,  have  almost  ceased  to  be  used  in  coloring 
butter.  You  may  find  them  in  some  localities.  Some  States  require 
that  butter  be  colored  with  annotto  and  not  with  coal  tar  dyes,  but 
everyone  of  these  is  a  coal  tar  dye,  and  you  will  see  by  the  variations 
in  tint  (they  do  not  show  very  well  in  artificial  light)  that  the  amount 
of  color  in  the  samples  was  very  different.  The  same  amount  of  material 
was  used  in  each  case.  Now,  compare  these  two  [exhibiting  samples], 
That  [indicating]  was  a  very  light-colored  sample;  this  [indicating] 
was  a  very  heavily  colored  sample. 

Dr.  Wiley  at  this  point  submitted  the  following  statement: 

COLORING  MATTERS  USED  FOB  COLORING  BUTTER  AND  ITS  IMITATIONS. 

Annotto,  the  principal  vegetable  dye  used,  is  mainly  composed,  of  the  pulp  sur- 
rounding the  fruit  Bixa  orellana  growing  in  the  East  and  West  Indies  and  South 
America.  Allen  states  that  two  different  kinds  reach  England,  namely,  the  Spanish 
anuotto,  imported  from  Brazil,  and  the  flag  or  French  annotto,  which  comes  from 
Cayenne. 

Annotto  contains  two  yellow  coloring  matters  which  have  been  given  names 
derived  from  the  botanical  names  of  the  plants. 

Bixin,  C^HruOs,  is  one  of  these,  but  its  properties  and  chemical  relationships  have 
been  imperfectly  studied.  When  separated  in  the  form  of  its  soda  salt  it  has  a 
reddish  color. 

Olellin  is  described  as  yellow  and  soluble  in  water  and  alcohol.  These  two  color- 
ing matters  combined,  in  annotto,  give  the  substance  its  characteristic  orange-yellow 
color. 

Coal-tar  dyes.  —  When  diazobenzene-sulphonic  acid  acts  on  amids,  with  an  alkaline 
solution  of  phenols,  a  series  of  coloring  matters  is  obtained  ranging  from  yellow  to 
deep  orange  or  red.  These  dyes  are  called  tropseolins,  because  the  shades  of  color 
they  produce  resemble  those  of  the  nasturtium  flower  (Tropceolum  magnus).  They 
usually  occur  in  commerce  as  soda  salts  and  are  distinguished  according  to  their 
shades,  tropsBolin  Y,  being  the  most  yellow,  and  the  tropseolin  0,  00,  and  so  on,  as  the 
shades  become  redder.  The  shade  of  the  color  becomes  redder  by  the  substitution 
of  toluene,  xylene,  or  cnmene  for  benzene. 

Two  of  these  dyes  which  have  been  used  for  coloring  foods  are  the  acid  or  fast 
yellow  and  the  orange  yellow  or  orange  G. 

The  acid  yellow,  or  the  fast  yellow,  is  the  soda  salt  of  amido-azobenzene  sul- 
phonic  acid,  represented  by  the  formula: 

C«H4(S03Na).  N:N.  C6H4.NH2. 

Orange  G  is  sodium  salt  of  benzene—  azobetauaphtol-disulphonic  acid,  having  the 
formula: 


This  class  of  dyes  is  also  known  as  sulphonated-azo  dyes. 

Victoria  yellow  has  also  been  reported  as  a  coloring  material  for  butter.  This 
substance  is  a  mixture  of  the  sodium  salts  of  the  dinitro-ortho  and  dinitro-para- 
cresol  C6H2(CH3).(NO3)2.ONa. 

.Representative  WILLIAMS.  Do  you  get  the  colors  in  these  samples 
from  butter? 

Dr.  WILEY.  From  butter  and  oleomargarine,  indiscriminately. 

Eepresentative  HENRY.  Are  we  to  understand  that  aniline  dyes  are 
used  in  coloring  oleomargarine  and  butter? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes,  sir  ;   almost  exclusively. 

Eepresentative  HENRY.  I  supposed  that  annotto  was  the  coloring 
matter  used. 

(*192) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  775 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  doubt  if  you  can  find  a  sample  of  butter  in  this  town 
colored  with  annotto. 

^Representative  HENRY.  Annotto  is  used  all  through  the  creameries  of 
the  North,  so  far  as  I  know. 

Eepreseutative  WILLIAMS.  Perhaps  the  law  in  Connecticut  requires 
butter  to  be  colored  with  aunotto. 

Dr.  WILEY.  They  use  coal-tar  dyes  in  the  product  sold  here. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Do  you  regard  the  aniline  dyes  as  equally 
wholesome? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  do  not  say  that  coloring  your  intestines  saffron  injures 
your  health.  The  amount  of  color  used  in  these  substances,  however, 
is  very  small.  I  do  not,  myself,  fancy  eating  artificial  colors.  I  would 
rather  have  the  good,  old-fashioned  butter,  with  its  natural  color, 
whether  deep  or  light;  and  I  believe  that  we  ought  to  educate  the  taste 
of  our  people  in  that  way.  I  believe  we  are  ruining  the  taste  of  our 
people  by  coloring  our  butter;  and  the  farther  South  you  go  the  deeper 
the  color  gets. 

Representative  HENRY.  Pardon  me  again — do  you  think  these  ani- 
line dyes  affect  the  flavor  of  butter? 

Dr.  WILEY.  No,  sir;  oh,  no.  These  dyes  are  absolutely  without 
flavor. 

Eepresentative  HENRY.  Wherein  are  they  unwholesome? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  did  not  say  they  were.  I  said  I  did  not,  myself,  fancy 
eating  them. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Do  you  think  the  fact  that  people  color 
butter  is  any  excuse  for  people  being  permitted  to  color  oleomargarine, 
if,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  results  in  putting  butter  and  oleomargarine 
onto  people  who  do  not  want  to  eat  it  in  that  shape? 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  Then  reverse  the  question. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Yes,  sir;  answer  it,  and  then  reverse  it? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  believe  that  every  food  product  should  have  the  same 
right  before  the  law.  I  do  not  see  why  there  should  be  a  distinction. 

Eepresentative  BAKER.  You  stated  a  minute  ago  that  the  manufac- 
turer of  every  food  product  has  the  right  to  make  it  palatable  to  the 
consumer. 

Dr.  WILEY.  And  to  make  it  attractive  in  its  taste,  provided  he  tells 
what  is  in  it — provided  he  does  not  injure  the  health  of  the  consumer. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  You  just  stated  that  you  would  prefer  to 
have  butter  without  coloring? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes,  sir;  I  prefer  it  so,  very  much,  for  myself. 

Eepreseiitative  NEVILLE.  So  do  I,  and  I  apprehend  there  are  a  great 
many  people  in  the  same  position. 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  prefer  it  very  much ;  and  having  been  brought  up  in 
the  dairy  industry,  and  being  interested  in  the  subject,  I  believe  we  are 
injuring  our  dairy  industries  by  permitting  the  coloring  of  butter. 

Eepresentative  HENRY.  That  has  been  for  years  my  contention  with 
butter  makers— that  the  dairy  interests  were  injuring  their  own  prod- 
ucts by  artificial  coloring. 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes;  that  is  my  idea,  my  conviction.  You  can  get 
uncolored  butter  in  New  York;  you  can  go  and  get  it  at  Delmonico's, 
and  some  other  high-priced  restaurants ;  and  the  fact  that  the  uncolored 
butter  brings  the  highest  price  in  the  market  ought  to  be  an  object 
lesson  to  our  dairymen  that  they  are  standing  in  their  own  light  when 
they  color  their  butter.  Now,  if  they  would  let  the  manufacturers  color 
oleomargarine,  and  would  keep  butter  at  its  natural  color,  there  would 
be  no  difficulty  in  discriminating  between  the  two. 

(*193) 


776  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Another  quest! on,  Professor:  Were  any  of 
these  tests  that  you  have  described  made  on  butter  furnished  by  farmers 
from  the  country? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Oh,  I  do  not  know.  I  simply  bought  my  butter  and 
oleomargarine  in  the  open  market.  The  samples  which  I  bought  are 
all  here;  but  I  do  not  know  who  made  them. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Professor,  with  regard  to  the  healthfulness 
of  oleomargarine,  have  you  found  in  it  anything  deleterious  to  the  human 
system  as  a  food  product? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  never  have  in  the  analysis  of  oleomargarine. 

Representative  ALLEN.  You  have  examined  it  with  that  view  and 
purpose,  have  you! 

Dr.  WILEY.  Not  especially  with  a  view  to  finding  deleterious  sub- 
stances; no,  sir;  but  with  simply  a  view  to  determining  its  composition. 
But  I  never  have  detected  in  fresh  samples  of  oleomargarine  any  bad 
odor  or  bad  taste,  nor  have  I  noticed  in  the  analysis  the  presence  of 
bodies  foreign  to  those  which  I  have  just  mentioned,  except  that  there 
are  portions  of  butter  in  oleomargarine,  if  churned  with  cream  or  milk ; 
and  I  believe  that  for  many  markets  at  the  present  time  glucose  is  used 
in  small  quantities  in  oleomargarine  as  a  preserving  agent.  It  is 
demanded  by  the  markets  of  some  portions  of  this  country  or  of  for- 
eign countries. 

Representative  ALLEN.  What  is  the  relative  amount  of  stearin  in 
butter  and  oleomargarine! 

Dr.  WILEY.  There  is  very  much  more  in  oleomargarine. 

Representative  ALLEN.  To  what  extent? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  could  not  now  state  the  exact  quantity  of  stearin  in 
oleomargarine,  but  it  must  be  20  or  25  per  cent,  perhaps,  while  in  butter 
it  is  only  about  4  per  cent. 

Representative  BAKER.  Twenty-five  per  cent  of  stearin,  you  say? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  do  not  remember  the  exact  figures,  but  I  know  there 
is  very  much  more  in  oleomargarine  than  in  butter. 

Representative  BAKER.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  report  of  the  Treasury  Department  does  not  show  any 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  have  not  looked  into  the  question  for  years. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, Dr.  Wiley,  shows  the  amount  of  stearin  in  oleomargarine  as  0.007. 
That  is  almost  inappreciable? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Now,  then,  I  notice  that,  according  to 
your  statement,  the  amount  of  stearic  acid,  or  whatever  it  is 

Dr.  WILEY.  Dioxystearin  and  stearin. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Yes;  the  amount  of  dioxy stearin  in  but 
ter  was  1.04  per  cent,  was  it  not,  or  just  1  per  centt 

Dr.  WILEY.  One  per  cent  in  round  numbers. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Exactly  1  per  cent. 

Dr.  WILEY.  And  of  stearin  about  2  per  cent. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  So,  according  to  that,  if  these  two  reports 
are  correct,  there  is  more  stearin  in  butter  than  in  oleomargarine? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Now,  I  wish  to  state  to  the  committee  that  I  have  not 
looked  at  this  point,  in  regard  to  the  amount  of  stearin  in  oleomarga- 
rine, for  many  years;  and  I  may  be  mistaken  in  my  statement.  If  so, 
I  wish  to  reserve  the  right  to  correct  it  after  looking  the  matter  up. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  I  simply  took  the  amount  of  stearin  in 
butter  from  your  statement. 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes;  that  is  all  right. 


OLEOMABGAEINE.  777 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  And  the  amount  of  stearin  in  oleomar- 
garine, 0.007,  from  the  statement  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  know  about  the  amount  in  butter,  because  it  is  only 
lately  that  I  have  made  up  this  table,  and  looked  the  matter  up  afresh. 
But  in  regard  to  the  amount  in  oleomargarine  I  have  not  looked  at  it 
for  many  years.  I  wish  to  reserve  the  right  to  correct  my  statement  in 
that  respect  after  further  investigation. 

(A  copy  of  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  handed  to 
Dr.  Wiley.) 

Dr.  WILEY.  He  does  not  give  the  amount  of  stearin  in  the  neutral 
lard  and  the  oleo  oil  and  cotton-seed  oil.  He  does  not  give  that  at  all. 
He  only  gives  some  that  is  used  specially;  but  stearin  is  found  in  those 
other  ingredients,  which  he  does  not  mention  there  at  all.  I  will  give 
the  committee  the  exact  figures  on  that  point. 

[Dr.  Wiley  subsequently  submitted  to  the  committee  the  following 
letter:] 

UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OP  AGRICULTURE, 

DIVISION  OF  CHEMISTRY, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  May  16,  1900. 
Hon.  JAS.  W.  WADSWORTH, 

Chairman  of  Committee  on  Agriculture,  House  of  Representatives. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  desire  to  submit  the  following  additional  statement  in  regard  to  the 
percentage  of  stearin  in  oleomargarine: 

In  the  statement  furnished  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  it  is  said 
that  only  0.007  per  cent  of  stearin  are  found  in  oleomargarine.  On  examining  care- 
fully these  data  I  find  that  they  refer  to  the  amount  of  stearin  which  is  added  in 
the  process  of  manufacture,  but  this  statement  does  not  refer  to  the  stearin  which 
is  normally  found  in  the  natural  constituents  used  iu  the  manufacture  of  oleomar- 
garine. 

Stearin  is  a  natural  glyceride  found  in  the  fats  of  all  animals  and  in  the  oils  of 
all  vegetables.  It  has  the  highest  melting  point  of  any  of  the  ordinary  natural  fats, 
and  those  bodies  which  contain  the  largest  percentage  of  it  have  the  highest  melting 
point,  such  as  tallow,  while  those  bodies  which  have  smaller  quantities  of  stearin 
have  low  melting  points,  as,  for  instance,  cotton-seed  oil. 

The  natural  quantity  of  stearin  found  in  lard,  oleo  oil,  and  cotton-seed  oil  varies 
largely  with  different  samples.  The  average  composition  of  neutral  lard,  from  the 
data  which  I  am  able  to  find  on  record,  may  be  given  as  62  parts  of  olein  and  38  parts 
of  stearin  and  palmitin  combined,  of  which  the  greater  amount  is  stearin.  Tal- 
low contains  a  very  much  larger  proportion  of  stearin,  but  the  oleo  oil  which  is 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  has  a  large  part  of  its  stearin  separated 
by  subjecting  it  to  cold  before  it  is  used  in  the  manufacture.  It  is  difficult,  there- 
fore, to  state  even  approximately  the  quantity  of  stearin  in  oleo  oil,  but  I  should 
say  that  20  per  cent  would  be  a  very  low  estimate. 

Cotton-seed  oil  has  a  still  lower  percentage  of  stearin,  but  I  can  not  give 
definitely  the  quantity  which  the  average  oil  employed  would  represent. 

From  the  above  i%t  is  seen  that  in  neutral  lard  and  oleo  oil,  which  are  the  chief 
constituents  of  oleomargarine,  there  would  be  an  average  content  of  at  least  25  per 
cent  of  stearin.  These  two  fats  constitute  about  60  per  cent  of  oleomargarine; 
hence  the  total  amount  of  stearin  in  oleomargarine  is  approximately  15  per  cent. 
This,  you  will  see,  is  exactly  in  accordance  with  my  statement  before  the  committee, 
where  I  said  I  thought  that  oleomargarine  would  contain  20  per  cent  of  stearin. 

Yon  will  understand  that  the  above  is  an  approximate  estimate,  but  it  will  be 
found  on  further  investigation,  I  am  sure,  to  be  very  close  to  the  truth.  You  will 
notice  from  the  testimony  which  I  gave  before  the  committee  this  morning  that 
butter  fat  contains  about  4  per  cent  of  stearin  in  various  forme.  Oleomargarine 
contains,  say,  at  least  16  per  cent.  Thus  the  quantity  of  stearin  in  oleomargarine 
is  approximately  four  times  as  great  as  in  butter. 

I  trust  the  above,  given  in  harmony  with  your  request,  will  prove  satisfactory. 
Respectfully, 

H.  W.  WILEY,  Chemist. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Do  you  not  think  it  would  be  a  step  for- 
ward, which  would  be  advisable,  to  prohibit  impartiality,  in  connection 
with  all  food  products,  artificial  coloring  of  one  product  in  the  sem- 
blance of  other  products,  or  of  other  articles  of  the  same  product,  or 


778  OLEOMABG  ARINE. 

selling  one  product  in  the  name  of  other  products  or  of  other  articles  of 
the  same  product? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Well,  I  have  just  said  that  I  was  not  a  prohibitionist  in 
regard  to  coloring  foods.  I  would  not  say  that  colors  should  not  be 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  food.  I  would  even  be  willing  to  admit  the 
use  of  copper  in  preserving  the  color  of  peas  and  beans,  which  look  so 
attractive  in  their  green  color,  and  which,  if  not  preserved  in  this  way, 
soon  become  yellow  on  standing,  and  lose  their  attractive  appearance. 
But  I  have  always  insisted,  in  my  public  addresses  and  in  my  commu- 
nications to  Congress,  before  committees  and  otherwise,  that  no  color- 
ing matter  should  be  employed  unless  the  fact  is  plainly  indicated  upon 
the  package,  so  that  the  purchaser  may  know  exactly  what  it  is.  And 
that  is  the  attitude  that  I  hold  toward  pure-food  legislation — that  it 
should  be  general  and  not  special  in  its  character.  I  believe  that  the 
dairy  interests  would  be  far  better  protected  under  the  Brosius  bill, 
which  is  pending  before  Congress,  than  under  a  special  bill,  because  all 
the  interests  would  be  placed  on  the  same  footing.  The  Brosius  bill 
absolutely  prohibits  the  sale  of  any  product  as  an  imitation  or  under 
the  name  of  another,  and  provides  penalties  for  that  specific  purpose; 
so  that  it  would  be  absolutely  impossible  under  the  law,  if  that  bill  were 
passed,  to  sell  oleomargarine  for  butter  anywhere  in  this  country. 

.Representative  WILLIAMS.  That  is,  in  interstate  commerce? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes;  as  far  as  Congress  can  provide,  under  interstate 
commerce,  of  course,  for  prohibiting  the  transportation  of  these  articles. 
At  the  present  time,  with  perhaps  the  exception  of — well,  I  do  not  know 
that  I  will  make  any  exception — I  believe  that  the  fraud  in  selling 
oleomargarine  for  butter  (although  I  do  not  know  the  statistics)  is  per- 
haps the  most  pronounced  of  any  food  fraud  in  this  country  and  is 
deserving  of  the  most  rigid  punishment. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  In  that  connection,  will  you  tell  us  some- 
thing about  the  fraud  of  "renovated  butter,"  if  you  know  about  it? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes;  I  know  a  good  deal  about  that,  not  from  a  manu- 
facturing point  of  view,  but  the  other. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  I  wish  you  would  tell  the  committee 
about  it. 

Dr.  WILEY.  Two  years  ago  I  was  addressing  farmers'  institutes  in 
southern  Indiana,  and  I  saw,  loading  on  the  cars  at  North  Vernon,  car 
after  car  of  barrels.  I  said  to  my  friend,  who  was  the  agent,  "What 
have  you  got  in  all  these  barrels?"  "  Why,"  he  said,  "butter,  which 
we  have  bought  all  over  this  country."  I  said :  "Are  vou  sending  it 
to  New  York?"  "No,  sending  it  to  Elgin."  "What  for?"  "Why," 
he  said,  "they  take  it  there,  and  it  is  renovated  and  sold  as  Elgin 
creamery  butter  all  over  this  country."  And  there  was  carload  after 
carload  of  country  butter  (and  some  of  you  know  what  country  butter 
is,  indiscriminately)  which  was  hardly  fit  to  go  on  to  the  market,  but 
which  was  being  sent  there  for  the  purpose  of  having  it  reduced  to 
uniform  grade  in  a  town  famous  for  its  butter,  so  that,  being  sent  from 
that  town,  it  could  get  an  additional  price  in  the  world's  markets. 
And  that  is  a  very  common  practice  where  creameries  do  not  exist;  and 
they  are  not  found  all  over  this  country.  The  old-fashioned  way  of 
making  butter  in  the  farm-house  still  obtains  in  such  places;  and 
sometimes,  as  Mr.  Wadsworth  has  said,  the  butter  is  made  of  cream 
which  is  not  taken  at  the  right  moment,  and  which  is  not  entirely 
palatable.  Now,  I  do  not  know  the  exact  process  of  renovation, 
although  I  know  something  about  it.  I  know  that  the  butter  is  melted ; 
I  know  that  the  curd  is  removed,  and  it  has  been  stated  that  the  ran- 

(*196) 


OLEOM  ARGARINE.  779 

cidity  is  corrected  by  the  addition  of  an  alkali,  presumably  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  or  something  of  that  kind,  but  of  this  I  have  no  personal 
knowledge.  Then  the  material  is  rechurned  with  fresh  milk,  resalted 
and  molded,  and  makes  a  very  presentable  appearance  in  the  market. 
That  is  what  is  known  as  renovated  butter. 

Bepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Do  you  know  anything  about  their  col- 
lecting and  buying  rancid  butter  from  the  hotels  and  restaurants,  and 
renovating  that? 

Dr.  WILEY.  JSTo;  I  only  know  what  I  have  seen,  as  described  to  you. 
I  do  not  know  anything,  personally,  about  the  collection  of  such  but- 
ter; but  I  imagine  that  economical  hotel  keepers  and  restaurateurs  do 
not  throw  away  their  left-over  butter. 

STATEMENT  OF  W.  E.  MILLER,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING  ARMOUR  & 
CO.,  KANSAS  CITY,  KAN. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  I  will  say  to  the  committee  that  Mr.  Miller 
is  the  expert  who  has  control  of  the  butterine  factory  of  Armour  &  Co., 
at  Kansas  City. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  this  committee,  no 
manufactured  article  has  been  so  grossly  misrepresented  and  abused  as 
the  product  known  as  "butterine"  or  " oleomargarine,"  and  the  first 
poiut  we  wish  to  make  is  that  butterine  is  not  an  imitation. 

Butterine  possesses  merit,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  imitate  another 
article  in  order  to  sell  it.  This  product  has  a  separate  and  distinct 
value  commercially,  and  is  not  confused  with  butter  in  the  mind  of  the 
housewife. 

The  first  butterine  manufactured  was  of  very  high  color,  while  butter 
at  that  time  was  almost  universally  sold  in  its  natural  state.  The 
dairymen  were  quick  to  see  that  the  high  color  pleased  the  public,  and 
they  immediately  com  menced  to  color  their  product  also.  We  have 
taken  the  aggressive  at  all  times.  The  progressive  butterine  manu- 
fai-turers  conceived  the  idea  of  new- shape  rolls,  brick,  and  prints,  and 
also  attractive  packages,  which  appealed  to  the  eye  of  the  bu  yer.  We 
have  had  many  prominent  dairymen  acknowledge  that  the  butterine 
manufacturers  discount  them  when  it  comes  to  attractive  appearance 
of  their  product  in  packages. 

Butterine  has  a  great  deal  of  merit.  People  know  what  they  are  buy- 
ing, and  call  for  it.  On  pages  7  and  9  of  the  report  of  the  committee 
appointed  by  the  Senate  to  investigate  pure  food,  we  read  the  following: 

I  will  not  read  all  that  I  intended  to  read,  on  account  of  the  lateness 
of  the  hour.  This  is  a  summary  of  their  report : 

In  regard  to  butterine  or  oleomargarine,  it  is  not  claimed  by  any  of  the  witnesses 
before  your  committee  that  it  is  in  any  way  deleterious  to  public  health.  On  the 
contrary,  all  expert  evidence  upon  the  point  strongly  confirms  the  testimony  of  the 
manufacturers  of  this  article  to  the  effect  that  it  is  a  healthful  food  product. 

As  regards  the  much  discussed  question  of  color,  I  would  say  that 
we  use  exactly  the  same  as  that  sold  to  a  majority  of  all  the  creameries 
in  the  West,  and  in  about  the  same  proportion.  In  order  to  sell  our 
product  we  must  color  it  now  the  same  as  we  did  when  we  commenced 
its  manufacture.  If  we  had  started  out  using  no  coloring  whatever 
we  would  doubtless  have  had  as  large  a  business  established  on  uncol- 
ored  to-day  as  we  have  on  colored  butterine.  However,  as  the  trade 
have  become  accustomed  to  colored  goods,  we  could  not  at  this  late 
hour  get  them  accustomed  to  the  uncolored  product  In  fact,  we  have 

(*197) 


780  OLEOMARGARINE. 

attempted  to  sell  uncolored  butterine  in  a  number  of  prohibitive  States, 
but  it  has  proved  a  rank  failure. 

I  will  say  just  here  that  in  case  this  Grout  bill  is  passed  it  will  kill 
the  industry.  The  uncolored  product  will  not  sell.  We  have  tried  it 
in  a  number  of  prohibitive  States,  and,  as  I  say,  it  has  proved  a  failure 
in  each  instance. 

Why  should  color  be  prohibited  from  butterine  and  not  from  butter? 
The  same  color  is  used  in  similar  quantities  in  both  articles.  If  it  is 
undesirable  in  one,  why  is  it  not  undesirable  in  the  other? 

Taxing  butteriue  is  discrimination  in  favor  of  butter.  Why  would 
it  not  be  just  as  reasonable  to  place  a  ban  on  cable  and  electric  cars, 
because  they  displace  the  horse;  or  to  say  that  gas  and  electricity 
must  be  restricted,  because  they  decrease  the  profits  of  the  oil  kings; 
or  that  u  nearsilk"  should  be  heavily  taxed,  because  it  is  an  imitation 
of  the  real  article  and  answers  the  same  purpose  as  silk?  This  is  a 
progressive  age.  Something  valuable  is  given  to  the  public  each  year 
in  the  way  of  invention;  and  while  it  may  interfere  with  the  interests 
of  a  few,  yet  it  benefits  thousands.  Butterine  is  an  up  to-date  product, 
and  possesses  sufficient  merit  to  sell  successfully  throughout  the  world 
for  just  what  it  is. 

It  has  been  represented  to  this  committee  that  a  large  per  cent  of 
the  butterine  manufactured  is  sold  for  butter.  This  is  a  mistake  and 
can  not  be  proven  by  facts.  Much  publicity  has  been  given  to  the  sale 
of  a  few  packages  of  butterine  for  butter,  the  wrappers  of  which  were 
branded  "oleomargarine,"  but  this  is  not  conclusive  evidence  that  all 
dealers  in  the  United  States  are  practicing  the  same  deception.  We 
acknowledge  that  a  small  per  cent  of  butterine  is  sold  fraudulently, 
but  this  is  no  reason  why  its  sale  should  be  prohibited  altogether,  sim- 
ply because  one  unscrupulous  dealer  in  a  hundred  may  give  it  to  a 
purchaser  when  he  calls  for  butter.  It  should  be  noted  that  no 
purchaser  has  ever  been  heard  to  complain  of  being  deceived  and  not 
getting  good  value  for  his  money.  The  complaint  comes  from  the 
National  Dairy  Association,  who  are  posing  as  philanthropists,  and 
espousing  the  cause  of  these  purchasers  without  even  first  getting  their 
permission. 

Much  of  the  literature  with  which  Congress  has  been  flooded  ema- 
nated from  one  source.  Postal  cards  and  petitions  were  sent  individu- 
als throughout  the  United  States,  with  the  request  that  they  sign  and 
mail  them  to  members  of  Congress.  It  is  easy  to  get  the  assistance  of 
the  ignorant  by  telling  them  in  a  long  editorial  that  butterine  is 
unwholesome,  etc.,  but  when  these  same  individuals  come  before  intel- 
ligent men,  .such  as  we  have  before  us  to-day,  they  dare  not  say  one 
word  on  this  point. 

Eight  here  I  will  produce  a  copy  of  the  Chicago  Dairy  Produce, 
edited  by  Mr.  Knight,  in  the  back  of  which  I  notice  copies  of  blank 
applications  which  he  has  asked  his  readers  to  send  into  members  of 
Congress.  I  also  understand  that  they  have  a  printing  establishment 
in  Chicago  where  most  of  this  literature  is  printed;  and  here  is  a  card 
which  was  sent  a  certain  party,  dated  March  15, 1900. 

[At  this  point  Mr.  Miller  exhibited  a  printed  postal  card,  which  was 
left  with  the  committee.] 

I  also  see  that  here  is  a  piece  of  literature  which  has  been  mailed 
indiscriminately  over  ti*>*  United  States  under  the  frank  of  Congress- 
man Grout. 

Kepresentative  BAILEI.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  MILLEB.  It  is  an  article  on  butterine. 

(*198) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


781 


Eepresentative  BAILEY.  Did  you  get  one  of  them! 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  is  in  the  interest  of  the  Grout  bill. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Did  you  get  one  of  them  under  a  frank! 

Mr.  MILLER.  No;  but  this  came  to  a  party  in  our  employ. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Who  was  he? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  one  in  our  employ,  you  meant 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Who  was  that  man  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  One  of  our  employees. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  What  is  his  name? 

Mr.  MILLER.  James  Hobson.  He  is  an  assistant  in  the  butterine 
department. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  He  got  that  under  the  frank  of  Mr.  Grout? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  here  is  the  document,  right  here. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Leave  it  with  the  committee. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  I  would  like  to  ask  if  that  is  not  a  public 
document? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Why,  yes;  it  is  published,  but  it  is  published  by  Con- 
gressman Grout. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  No ;  he  asked  if  it  was  not  a  public  document? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No ;  it  is  a  reprint. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  A  reprint  of  what? 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  is  the  reprint  of  an  article  by  some  Ph.  D.    It  says: 

Reprinted  from  the  Year  Book  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  fur 
1895. 

Now,  gentlemen,  dealers  do  not  sell  butterine  promiscuously  for 
butter,  as  is  claimed ;  and  if  the  promoters  of  this  crusade  had  taken 
the  time  and  trouble  to  investigate  in  the  various  markets,  they  would 
have  found  such  was  the  case.  We  furnish  all  dealers  selling  our  but- 
terine with  signs.  They  do  not  find  it  necessary  to  practice  deception. 
Our  butterine  sells  on  its  own  merits. 

Just  here  I  think  it  apropos  to  inform  this  committee  that  the 
secretary  of  the  National  Dairy  Association  made  the  statement  to 
Charles  A.  Sterne,  a  broker  of  Chicago,  at  the  close  of  the  Senatorial 
pure  food  investigation  there,  that  he  had  never  been  inside  of  a  but- 
terine factory.  Yet  this  gentleman  leads  the  fight  against  butterine, 
and  writes  long  editorials  on  a  product  he  has  never  even  seen  manu- 
factured. 

The  internal-revenue  regulations  are  strict  and  effective,  and  if  the 
National  Dairy  Association  will  commence  the  fraudulent  sale  of  but- 
terine they  will  very  soon  find  out  that  this  department  is  not  only  alive 
and  active,  but  that  justice  is  dealt  out  very  swiftly.  We  urge  our  trade 
to  sell  butterine  for  just  what  it  is,  and  never  encourage  or  countenance 
violation.  All  original  packages  are  branded  "oleomargarine,"  and 
all  of  our  regular  brands  which  are  sold  under  wrappers  are  also 
branded  "  oleomargarine."  In  addition  to  this,  the  retail  dealer  must 
brand  the  word  "  oleomargarine  "  on  the  outside  of  the  wrapper. 

Butterine  is  wholesome,  nutritious,  and  palatable.  There  is  no  secret 
whatever  about  the  process  of  manufacture.  Our  factory  is  open  to  the 
public  at  all  times.  This  product  is  composed  of  the  following  ingredi- 
ents :  Oleo  oil  (made  from  choice  fats  of  the  beef),  neutral  lard  (or  the 
leaf  lard  of  the  hog),  refined  cotton-seed  oil,  milk,  cream,  salt,  and 
butter. 

We  have  never  had  a  pound  of  paraffin  in  our  factory,  and  we  do 
not  desire  stearin. 

The  proportions  of  butterine  vary  according  to  the  grades  desired. 
Cleanliness  is  enforced  in  our  factory  with  the  rigidity  of  the  laws  of 

(*199) 


782 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


the  Medes  and  Persians.  This  product  will  remain  sweet  indefinitely, 
because  it  contains  very  little  butyric  acid,  which  is  the  decaying  prin- 
ciple in  butter.  We  call  your  attention  to  the  opinions  of  a  number  of 
noted  chemists  whose  characters  are  beyond  reproach  and  whose 
opinions  are  of  the  highest  character. 

I  quoted  Professor  Wiley  here  in  my  paper,  but  as  he  is  present,  I 
have  refrained  from  reading  that  part  of  my  remarks. 

There  has  been  a  good  deal  said  about  the  melting  point  of  butterine 
being  much  higher  than  the  temperature  of  the  stomach.  The  temper- 
ature of  the  stomach  is  98.4°. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Are  you  a  chemist,  Mr.  Miller? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir;  but  that  is  the  statement  of  chemists.  Now, 
in  order  to  settle  this  question,  I  sent  some  samples  to  Professor 
Schweitzer,  who  is  professor  of  chemistry  in  the  university  at  Colum- 
bia, Mo.,  and  who  also  has  charge  of  the  experiment  station  there.  He 
has  been  a  lifelong  friend  of  Professor  Wiley,  who  will  vouch  for  his 
ability.  He  made  a  test  of  four  samples;  and  the  melting  point  of 
these  lour  samples,  commencing  with  the  lowest  grade,  was  as  follows: 
82.950,  84.65°,  93.650,  96.800;  and  96.800,  wuich  is  the  same  as  our 
highest  grade  of  butterine,  is  the  melting  point  of  pure  butter.  Where- 
fore, the  melting  point  of  the  highest  grade  is  almost  two  degrees  under 
the  temperature  of  the  stomach.  I  would  like  to  submit  his  letter  as 
part  of  my  statement. 

(The  letter  above  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

COLUMBIA,  Mo.,  April  10, 1900. 
The  ARMOUR  PACKING  COMPANY, 

Kansas  City,  KanB. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  four  samples  of  butterine,  the  melting  points  of  which  you 
desired  me  to  determine,  came  to  hand  on  April  7,  and  gave  the  following  results : 


Begins  to 
ruelt. 

Flufd. 

Perfectly  clear. 

o<7. 
28.00 
28.20 
28.25 
34.50 
33.50 

o(7. 
28.30 
28.75 
31.00 
36.00 
35.00 

o(7. 
28.30 
29.25 
34.25 
36.00 
36.00 

ojy. 
82.95 
84.65 
93.65 
96.80 
96.80 

Best  butter                                .                       

If  the  mean  between  the  temperatures  at  which  the  samples  begin  to  melt  and  at 
which  easy  fluidity  is  attained  are  taken  to  represent  the  mean  melting  points,  then 
the  results  are: 


Melting  point. 


°c. 

28.15 

OjP. 

82.67 

28.47 

82.24 

Silver  Churn  ^  

29.62 

85.31 

35.25 

95.45 

Butter  

34.25 

93.65 

Yours,  truly, 

P.  SCHWEITZER, 
Professor  of  Agricultural  Chemistry  and  Chemist  to  Experiment  Station. 

Eepresentative  COONEY.  Will  you  permit  me  to  ask  you  again  what 
position  Professor  Schweitzer  holds? 
Mr.  MILLER.  He  is  professor  of  chemistry  at  the  State  University, 

(*200) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  783 

Columbia,  Mo.,  and  he  is  also  professor  of  agricultural  chemistry  and 
chemist  to  the  experiment  station. 

Bepreseutative  COONEY.  Chemist? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir.  Now  I  will  read  the  opinions  of  a  number  of 
other  well-known  chemists. 

Prof.  S.  W.  Johnson,  director  of  the  Connecticut  Agricultural  Exper- 
iment Station  and  professor  of  agricultural  chemistry  at  Yale  College, 
New  Haven,  says: 

It  is  a  product  that  is  entirely  attractive  and  wholesome  as  food,  and  one  that  is 
for  all  ordinary  and  culinary  purposes  the  full  equivalent  of  good  butter  made  from 
cream.  I  regard  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  as  a  legitimate  and  beneficent 
industry. 

Dr.  A.  G.  Stockwell,  who  needs  no  introduction,  says,  in  the  Scientific 
American : 

In  every-day  life  butter  is  very  essential.  Its  free  use  by  sufferers  from  wasting 
diseases  is  to  be  encouraged  to  the  utmost.  Considering  the  foregoing,  it  seems 
strange  that  oleomargarine  has  not  been  thought  of  as  a  palatable  and  suitable 
article  of  diet  for  those  suffering  from  wasting  diseases. 

It  is  free  from  all  objections.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  a  better  and  purer  butter 
than  nine-tenths  of  the  dairy  product  that  is  marketed,  and  one  that  is  far  more 
easily  preserved.  There  are  a  large  number  who  imagine  oleomargarine  is  made 
from  any  old  scraps  of  grease  regardless  of  age  or  cleanliness.  The  reverse  is  the 
fact.  Good  oleo  can  only  be  had  by  employing  the  very  best  and  freshest  of  fat. 
This  artificial  butter  is  as  purely  wholesome*  (and  perhaps  even  better  as  food)  as 
the  best  dairy  or  creamery  product. 

Jollies  and  Winkler,  the  official  chemists  of  the  Australian  Govern- 
ment, after  thorough  investigation  of  butterine,  reported: 

The  only  germs  found  in  "oleo"  are  those  common  to  air  and  water.  Although 
carefully  searched  for,  tubercular  bacilli  and  other  obnoxious  bacilli  were  conspic- 
uous by  their  absence. 


Prof.  G.  0.  Caldwell,  of  Cornell  University,  says: 


The  process  for  making  butterine,  when  properly  conducted,  is  cleanly  throughout, 
free  from  animal  tissue  or  other  impurities,  and  consists  of  pure  fat,  made  up  of  the 
fats  commonly  known  as  alaine  and  margarine.  It  possesses  no  qualities  whatever 
that  can  make  it  in  the  least  degree  unwholesome. 

Prof.  W.  O.  Atwater,  director  of  the  United  States  Government 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  Washington,  D.  C.,  says: 

Butteriue  is  perfectly  wholesome  and  healthy,  and  has  a  high  and  nutritious  value. 
The  same  entirely  favorable  opinion  I  find  expressed  by  the  most  prominent  European 
authorities — English,  French,  and  German. 

It  contains  essentially  the  same  ingredients  as  natural  butter  from  cow's  milk.  It 
is  perfectly  wholesome  and  healthy,  and  has  a  high  nutritive  value. 

Prof.  Paul  Schweitzer,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D.,  professor  of  chemistry,  Missouri 
State  University,  says : 

As  a  result  of  my  examination,  made  both  with  the  microscope  and  the  delicate 
chemical  tests  applicable  to  such  cases,  I  pronounce  butterine  to  be  wholly  and  une- 
quivocally free  from  any  deleterious  or  in  the  least  objectionable  substances.  Care- 
fully made  physiological  experiments  reveal  no  di  " 
and  digestibility  between  butterine  and  butter. 

Dr.  Adolph  Jolles,  of  Vienna,  from  address  before  section  7  of  the 
International  Hygienic  Congress  at  Budapest,  said: 

As  regards  nutritive  value,  pure  butterine  or  oleomargarine  is  as  digestible  and 
nutritive  as  pure  butter. 

Prof.  George  P.  Barker,  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania: 

Butterine  is,  in  my  opinion,  quite  as  valuable  as  a  nutritive  agent  as  butter  itself. 
It  is  perfectly  wholesome,  and  is  desirable  as  an  article  of  food.  I  can  see  no  reason 
why  butterine  should  not  be  an  entirely  satisfactory  equivalent  for  ordinary  butter, 
whether  considered  from  the  physiological  or  commercial  standpoint. 

(*201)  - 


784  OLEOMABGA.RINE. 

Gentlemen,  the  passage  of  a  law  such  as  the  Grout  bill  would  destroy 
an  industry  in  which  there  are  $15,000,000  invested  and  25,000  men 
employed.  Butterine  in  its  natural  state  is  unsalable,  because  it  is  not 
pleasing  to  the  sight.  We  could  not  sell  butterine  with  an  additional 
tax  of  8  cents  per  pound;  therefore,  should  this  bill  become  a  law,  a 
legitimate  industry,  which  it  has  taken  years  to  build  up,  would  be 
wiped  out  of  existence.  The  effects  of  such  legislation  are  manifold. 
The  butterine  manufacturers,  wholesale  and  retail  dealers,  and  con- 
sumers, are  not  the  only  injured  parties.  It  would  deprive  the  Govern- 
ment of  over  $2,000,000  revenue  annually,  and  practically  destroy  the 
cotton-seed  oil  industry  of  the  South,  in  which  there  are  millions  of 
dollars  invested  and  many  thousand  men  employed.  The  injury  to  the 
cattle  and  hog  industry  is  almost  beyond  estimate,  although  it  has  been 
conservatively  stated  that  the  depreciation  would  be  $62,000,000 
annually." 

The  present  tax  and  regulations  are  sufficient  to  control  the  sale  of 
this  product,  and  the  intent  of  the  proposed  legislation  is  not  to  fur- 
ther regulate  but  to  destroy  the  industry  altogether.  This  would 
establish  a  dangerous  precedent  of  destroying  one  industry  to  the 
advantage  of  another,  which  is  directly  against  our  Constitution. 

While  butterine  is  consumed  in  large  quantities  by  the  better  class 
of  people,  yet  it  is  sold  principally  to  a  class  of  buyers  who  can  not  afford 
high  priced  butter.  Kill  thebutterine  industry  and  millionsof  poor  labor- 
ers will  be  compelled  to  do  without  a  palatable  article  for  their  bread. 
Twenty  cents  per  pound  was  the  very  lowest  price  at  which  the  cheap- 
est grade  of  butter  could  be  purchased  during  the  winter  months  in 
Kansas  City,  and  the  quality  of  the  article  was  not  even  up  to  the 
cheapest  grade  of  bntterine.  A  good,  sweet,  and  palatable  grade  of 
butterine  retailed  during  this  time  at  15  cents  for  a  single  pound,  or  2 
pounds  for  25  cents.  The  laboring  man  has  some  rights,  as  well  as  the 
creamery  man,  and  his  rights  should  be  taken  into  consideration  by  all 
legislative  bodies. 

It  has  been  represented  to  this  committee  that  the  butterine  indus- 
try was  killing  the  butter  business — that,  to  use  the  language  of  the 
opposition — 

National  legislation  such  as  is  embraced  in  the  Grout  bill  is  absolutely  essential 
to  prevent  the  almost  absolute  destruction  of  an  industry  bringing  to  the  agricul- 
turists of  this  country  fully  $500,000,000  per  year. 

We  would  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  figures  do  not  show  that  the 
butter  business  is  going  backward,  but,  on  the  contrary,  actual  figures 
show  that  it  is  steadily  growing.  From  1870  to  1890  the  output  of  but- 
ter in  the  United  States  increased  134  per  cent.  From  1890  to  1900, 
the  production  of  butterine  in  the  United  States  increased  172  per  cent. 
The  total  sales  of  butterine  the  last  revenue  year  are  only  2J  per  cent 
of  the  total  make  of  butter.  In  1890  the  total  butterine  sales  were  2.6 
per  cent  of  the  total  amount  of  butter  produced,  or  a  decrease  of  one- 
tenth  of  one  per  cent  in  ten  years.  Yet  without  these  figures  you 
would  be  led  to  believe  that  butterine  was  an  octopus,  the  arms  of 
which  were  stubbornly  fastened  into  the  very  vitals  of  the  dairy  indus- 
try, crushing  out  its  life  and  energy.  The  average  prices  of  butter  for 
the  year  ending  January  1, 1900,  was  the  highest  since  1894.  Does  this 
look  as  if  the  industry  needs  protection  to  prevent  its  almost  absolute 
destruction?  This  crusade  is  purely  a  matter  of  sentiment  rather 
than  justice. 

Now,  it  may  be  asked  where  I  got  my  figures  for  the  last  year.  I  will 
say  that  I  got  them  from  Mr.  Wilson,  who  is  editor  of  the  Elgin  Dairy 

.  (*202) 


OLEOMARGARIKE.  785 

Report,  and  is  supposed  to  be  one  of  the  leading  men  in  the  dairy  inter- 
est; so  1  would  judge  that  what  he  gave  us  was  about  correct. 

Before  closing,  I  would  like  to  quote  here  from  the  New  York  Produce 
Review  and  American  Creamery,  but  I  will  simply  give  you  the  substance 
of  their  article.  In  speaking  of  the  output  of  butter  for  the  last  year 
and  the  prospect  for  the  coming  year,  they  say  that  the  increase  would 
be  from  10  to  20  per  cent,  and  that  the  industry  is  flourishing  and  pros- 
perous. Yet  they  come  before  Congress  and  would  make  you  believe 
that  the  industry  needs  protection. 

Kepresentative  ALLEN.  Give  that  quotation  to  the  reporter,  in  con- 
nection with  your  remarks. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Very  well;  I  will  do  so.    I  thank  you,  gentlemen. 

Kepresentative  BAKER.  How  large  a  percentage  of  your  production 
of  oleomargarine  or  butterine  is  uncolored? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Uncolored  f  We  make  practically  no  uncolored  but- 
terine at  all.  There  is  no  demand  for  it. 

Kepresentative  BAKER.  It  is  sold  to  some  extent? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Very  little.  I  do  not  suppose  we  make  2,000  pounds  of 
uncolored  butterine  a  week.  When  the  prohibitive  laws  went  into  effect 
in  Missouri  and  Iowa  and  a  number  of  other  States  we  tried  to  do  some 
uncolored  butterine  business,  but  we  could  not  sell  the  product  at  all. 

Kepresentative  BAKER.  I  hold  in  my  hand  several  bills — not  from 
your  firm,  but  from  a  Chicago  firm — for  uncolored  butterine  sold  to  the 
retailers. 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  are  doing  practically  nothing  in  uncolored  butterine. 

Kepresentative  BAKER.  Another  question,  if  you  please.  You  speak 
of  cotton-seed  oil  as  being  how  large  a  percentage  of  butteriue?  How 
much  do  you  use  in  your  establishment! 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  varies  at  different  seasons  of  the  year.  In  the 
winter  time  we  use  a  larger  per  cent  than  we  do  in  the  summer  time. 

Kepresentative  BAKER.  I  suppose  so ;  but  can  you  not  tell  us,  roughly  I 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  will  range,  I  suppose,  from  18  to  25  per  cent. 

Kepresentative  BAKER.  Oh,  that  is  not  in  accord  with  the  informa- 
tion we  have. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  am  only  speaking  about  our  own  factory.  I  know 
nothing  about  what  the  others  do.  I  know  what  we  use. 

Kepresentative  BAKER.  How  large  an  amount  of  milk  and  cream  do 
you  use? 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  will  vary.  The  volume  of  milk,  cream,  and  salt 
will  be  somewhere  about  20  per  cent. 

Kepresentative  BAKER.  The  reports  made  from  the  Internal-Revenue 
Bureau  the  other  day  established  the  fact  that  the  percentage  of  milk 
and  cream  as  reported,  not  from  your  establishment,  but  altogether, 
was  very  much  larger  than  of  cotton-seed  oil.  In  fact,  if  I  am  not 
mistaken,  the  cotton  seed  oil  was  only  about  5  per  cent,  and  the  milk 
and  cream  some  16  or  17  of  the  entire  composition. 

Kepresentative  WILLIAMS.  No;  you  made  a  mistake  there.  You 
were  misled  by  the  form  of  the  report,  to  some  extent.  I  understand 
that  what  they  call  butter  oil 

Kepresentative  BAKER.  That  makes  about  10  or  11  per  cent. 

Kepresentative  WILLIAMS.  That  makes  about  8  per  cent  and  a  frac- 
tion—42  of  cotton- seed  oil,  and  4  of  what  they  call  butter  oil. 

Kepresentative  BAKER.  In  other  words,  it  makes  about  one-half  of 
the  amount  of  milk  and  cream  used — that  is  to  say,  it  is  a  very  small 
percentage  of  the  aggregate. 

Kepresentative  WILLIAMS.  I  was  astonished,  like  you,  to  notice  that 
*  S.  Rep.  2043 50  (*20S) 


786  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  proportion  of  cotton-seed  oil  was  less  than  I  had  been  told,  and 
that  the  per  cent  of  milk  and  butter  was  greater  than  I  had  been  told. 

Bepresentative  BAKER.  Yes ;  I  was,  too. 

.Representative  NEVILLE.  Will  you  permit  me,  Mr.  Miller?  You 
stated  a  moment  ago  that  you  could  not  sell  butterine  in  its  uncolored 
state,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

[Representative  NEVILLE.  That  you  had  tried  it,  and  that  it  was  a 
failure? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Bepresentative  NEVILLE.  But  that  you  did  sell  it  in  its  colored  state 
without  any  fraudulent  sales  of  it — that  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was 
sold  (you  mean  by  that  that  it  was  sold  by  you  as  a  wholesaler,  or  as  a 
manufacturer)  as  butterine? 

Mr.  MILLER.  As  butterine. 

Bepresentative  NEVILLE.  Not  as  butter? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir. 

Bepresentative  NEVILLE.  And  that  the  dealers  to  whom  you  sold  it, 
also  sold  it  upon  its  merits?  Is  that  what  you  mean  to  say? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Bepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now,  you  sell  it  in  Nebraska,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  we  sell  some  there. 

Bepresentative  NEVILLE.  Do  you  not  send  a  good  deal  of  it  from 
Kansas  City  in  to  Nebraska? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  it  could  not  be  called  a  great  deal,  because  it  is 
not  a  very  large  market.  We  sell  considerable ;  yes. 

Bepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now,  is  it  not  true  that  every  pound  of 
colored  oleomargarine  that  is  sold  in  Nebraska  is  sold  in  violation  of 
law? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  that  may  be;  yes. 

Bepresentative  NEVILLE.  Then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  which  is 
sold  in  Nebraska  is  sold  in  violation  of  law  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Not  necessarily.  The  law  was  tested  in  Omaha,  and 
the  lower  courts  declared  the  Nebraska  law  unconstitutional.  The 
dealers  feel  that  they  are  handling  the  goods  on  a  strictly  legitimate 
basis  now. 

Bepresentative  WILLIAMS.  It  is  sold  in  violation  of  the  statute,  then, 
but  of  a  statute  which  has  been  declared  unconstitutional? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Declared  unconstitutional. 

Bepresentative  HAUGEN.  You  stated  a  minute  ago  that  this  10  per 
cent  tax  would  destroy  the  cotton  industry  of  the  South.  You  meant 
the  cotton  seed  industry,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Bepresentative  HAUGEN.  What  is  the  number  of  pounds  or  gallons 
of  cotton- seed  oil  used  in  the  oleomargarine  output? 

Mr.  MILLER.  How  much  do  we  use,  do  you  mean  ? 

Bepresentative  HAUGEN.  What  is  the  amount  used  in  the  aggregate, 
by  all  the  factories  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  think  it  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  10,000,000  pounds. 

Bepresentative  HAUGEN.  Per  annum? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Bepresentative  HAUGEN.  What  is  the  amount  used  each  month  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Of  butterine? 

Bepresentative  HAUGEN.  Of  cottonseed  oil? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  could  not  give  you  those  figures. 

(*204) 


OLEOMARG  ARINE.  787 

Representative  HAUGEN.  You  had  some  estimate  in  your  mind  when 
you  made  that  assertion,  did  you  not?  You  certainly  would  not  make 
a  statement  of  that  kind  unless  you  had. 

Mr.  MILLER.  You  mean  the  amount  of  cotton -seed  oil  manufacturedt 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  am  not  prepared  to  give  you  that  statement,  because 
I  am  not  in  that  business. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  On  what  ground  do  you  base  your  state- 
ment that  the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill  would  destroy  the  cotton-seed 
industry  in  the  South,  unless  you  know  something  as  to  the  proportion 
used  in  your  industry? 

Mr.  MILLER.  For  the  reason  that  if  they  could  not  use  these 
10,000,000  gallons  of  the  refined  oil  in  the  manufacture  of  butterine, 
they  would  have  to  sell  it  in  its  crude  state;  and  it  would  place  a  ban 
upon  what  little  export  business  they  had,  and  kill  that.  Therefore,  it 
would  practically  ruin  the  industry. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  It  would  be  necessary  to  know  what  per- 
centage the  10,000,000  gallons  is  of  the  whole  production,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  make  the  statement  that  it  would  destroy  the  indus- 
try for  the  cotton -seed  oil  people. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  It  would  cut  off  the  sale  of  the  10,000,000 
pounds  annually,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  it  would  cut  off  the  sale  of  more  than  that,  because 
they  export  considerable.  If  the  sale  of  the  product  was  killed  in  this 
country,  the  exporters  would  not  buy  it. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  The  10  per  cent  tax  would  not  affect  the 
export  of  cotton  oil  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  would  kill  the  butterine  industry.  They  would  not 
have  any  use  for  the  butter  oil  here;  and  if  they  went  to  export  it,  the 
people  on  the  other  side  would  say,  "That  product  is  under  a  ban  in  the 
United  States;  why  should  we  buy  it?w 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  You  state,  then,  that  you  have  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  number  of  gallons  or  the  number  of  pounds  of  cotton-seed 
oil  produced  in  this  country? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  And  yet  you  make  the  statement  that  this 
bill  would  destroy  the  cotton-seed  industry  of  the  south? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  make  the  statement  as  I  get  it  from  the  cotton-seed 
oil  people. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  I  wanted  to  ask  one  further  question  when 
I  was  interrupted  a  while  ago.  You  state  that  you  are  now  selling  but- 
terine in  Nebraska  because  the  lower  courts  have  held  that  the  law 
was  unconstitutional? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  You  know  that  that  matter  has  been  car- 
ried to  the  Supreme  Court,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  And  you  also  know  that  the  case  was  only 
decided  a  few  months  ago,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  When  was  it  decided? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  cases  that  were  decided  in  the  lower  courts  were 
only  decided  a  few  months  ago,  and  have  never  been  carried  up.  If 
they  have,  they  have  been  carried  up  without  my  knowledge;  and 
they  were  our  cases,  and  we  handled  them. 


788  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  I  understand  that  they  have  been  carried 
up,  notwithstanding  you  have  no  knowledge  of  it,  but  that  the  deci- 
sion was  only  rendered  a  few  months  ago. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now,  then,  is  it  not  true  that  you  sold 
batter  all  last  year  and  the  year  before  in  violation  of  the  law! 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir;  we  did  not.  We  sell  our  goods  in  Kansas. 
There  is  no  law  in  Kansas. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  But  at  the  same  time,  you  sell  in  Nebraska 
also,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  We  sell  in  Kansas.  Our  goods  are  sold  in  Kansas 
City,  and  not  in  Nebraska. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  But  you  sold  them  to  your  Nebraska  cus- 
tomers ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  we  did. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  And  you  knew  that  if  they  sold  your  prod- 
uct there,  colored,  they  either  had  to  sell  it  as  butter  or  colored  oleo- 
margarine, in  violation  of  law,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  As  soon  as  the  law  went  into  effect  the  cases  were 
brought  up  to  see  whether  the  law  was  unconstitutional  or  not;  and  in 
the  meantime  the  retailers  went  ahead  and  sold. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Being  advised  by  their  counsel  that  the 
law  was  unconstitutional? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  WHITE.  Has  the  law  been  finally  adjudicated  in  the 
last  court  of  the  State  of  Nebraska? 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir ;  not  in  the  last  court. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  Do  we  understand  you  to  say  that  the  pas- 
sage of  this  law  would  destroy  the  cotton  industry  of  the  South? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  the  cotton-seed  oil  industry. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  That  is  the  point  I  wanted  to  bring  out. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes;  the  oil  part  of  it. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  Have  there  not  been  published  statements — 
I  do  not  know  that  you  are  aware  of  what  was  said  before  the  com- 
mittee here,  but  I  think  the  statements  were  made  by  the  cotton-seed 
oil  men  here  that  that  would  be  the  effect  on  their  business. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  COONEY.  Now,  Mr.  Miller,  I  would  like  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion for  my  own  special  information,  which  I  have  not  heard  explained 
here,  while  I  have  been  here,  anyway.  This  cattle  industry  cuts  a 
bigger  figure  in  this  matter  with  many  of  us  than  has  been  given  atten- 
tion. In  my  country,  the  cattlemen,  the  cattle  raisers  and  hog  raisers, 
are  under  the  impression  that  they  now  receive  from  $2  to  $3  per  head 
more  tor  their  cattle,  and  from  20  to  30  per  cent  more  for  their  hogs, 
than  they  will  if  this  bill  is  passed;  and  I  believe  they  get  the  informa- 
tion from  Kansas  City.  Now,  I  am  very  anxious  to  know  if  that  is  a 
fact,  and  I  will  be  very  glad  if  you  can  figure  out  and  show  to  me  how 
these  parties  living  in  my  country  get  that  additional  amount  of  money 
out  of  their  cattle  and  hogs. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  will  explain  it  in  this  way:  We  use  only  the  choice 
fats  of  the  beef  in  the  manufacture  of  oleo  oil. 

Eepresentative  COONEY.  Will  you  give  the  figures  and  facts,  so  that 
I  can  be  satisfied  on  that  point? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  rich  caul  fat  which  we  get  out  of  the  beef  will  aver- 
age about  40  pounds  to  the  steer,  and  in  using  it  in  the  manufacture  of 
butterine  it  has  an  enhanced  value  over  ordinary  tallow.  Of  couise 

(*206) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  789 

that  value  varies  at  different  times  of  the  year — sometimes  there  is  a 
difference  of  3  cents,  sometimes  more,  and  sometimes  not  so  much — 
but  say  to-day  oleo  oil  is  worth  9  cents  and  common  tallow  is  worth  5 
cents,  and  if  we  could  not  use  this  caul  fat  in  the  manufacture  of  but- 
terine  it  would  go  into  tallow  and  hava  no  greater  value  than  tallow. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  lard  of  the  hog.  We  only  use  the  leaf  lard  in 
the  manufacture  of  butterine.  Now,  if  we  could  not  use  it  in  butterine 
it  would  be  sold  as  ordinary  lard,  and  there  a  difference  of  about  2 
cents  a  pound  in  the  two  articles. 

Representative  COONEY.  Have  you  any  figures  on  that  subject,  in 
regard  to  cattle,  which  you  could  leave  here ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir;  I  can  do  that. 

Kepresentative  COONEY.  You  say  the  cattle  raiser  makes  $2  or  $3  a 
head  which  he  would  not  make  if  this  bill  were  passed? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  might  supplement  my  remarks  by  saying  that  if  there 
were  no  demand  for  this  neutral  lard  and  oleo  oil  in  the  manufacture  of 
butterine  it  would  depreciate  the  value  of  his  stock. 

Kepresentative  COONEY.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Well,  it  will  vary  at  different  times  in  the  year.  We 
figure  about  20  cents  per  hog  and  about  $2  per  head  of  steer. 

Eepresentative  COONEY.  Now,  who  gets  that  $2  per  head! 

Mr.  MILLER.  Who  gets  it  now? 

Eepresentative  COONEY.  Yes;  who  gets  it  now? 

Mr.  MILLER.  The  cattle  raiser. 

Eepresentative  COONEY.  How  do  you  make  that  out? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Why  doesn't  he  get  it? 

Eepresentative  COONEY.  Well,  he  sells  his  cattle  to  those  who  buy 
cattle  in  the  market,  and  it  is  when  they  are  slaughtered  that  the  fat  is 
purchased  by  the  oleomargarine  men.  Do  they  divide  any  of  this  profit 
among  them? 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  is  just  this  way.    If  this  law  went  into  effect 

Eepresentative  COONEY.  Does  the  farmer  who  raises  the  steer  or  sells 
the  Steer  upon  the  market  get  all  of  this  difference? 

Mr.  MILLER.  He  is  getting  it  now;  yes,  sir;  and  if  the  law  went  into 
effect  he  would  not  get  it  thereafter.  He  would  accept  $2  a  head  less 
for  each  steer. 

Eepreseutative  COONEY.  That  is  just  what  I  would  like  to  know,  Mr. 
Miller.  If  you  have  any  proof  of  that  fact,  that  the  farmer  who  raises 
the  steer  and  sells  it  upon  the  market  gets  the  two  or  three  extra  dol- 
lars himself,  I  would  be  very  glad  to  have  it.  I  can  see  how  the  value 
of  the  steer  may  be  enhanced;  but  does  he  get  all  this  enhanced  value? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Ke  does. 

Eepresentacive  COONEY.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  know. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  That  would  be  a  matter  of  bargaining 
and  huckstering  in  the  market,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Of  course  the  farmer  and  the  jobber — the 
men  who  bought  the  stock  to  sell  again — would  each  be  trying  to  get 
the  most  they  could  out  of  it? 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  is  right. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  It  would  depend  upon  the  individual  sales 
as  to  who  got  it  and  who  did  not. 

Eepresentative  BAKER.  Mr.  Miller,  does  the  firm  that  you  represent — 
the  Armour  Packing  Company — manufacture  a  substitute  for  lard  com- 
monly known  as  "cottolene?" 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir. 

(*207) 


790  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Eepresentative  BAKER.  Nothing  of  that  character! 

Mr.  MILLER.  No,  sir;  the  Kansas  City  firm  does  not. 

Eepresentative  HAUGKEN.  And  you  claim  that  if  the  sale  of  this  oil 
is  cut  off  entirely  it  will  make  a  difference  of  $2  for  every  steer  killed 
in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  In  the  lard,  it  would  make  a  difference  of  20  cents  per 
head  in  the  hog,  and  $2  per  head  in  the  steer. 

Representative  HAUGKEN.  I  understand  that  there  were  about  4,600,- 
000  cattle  killed  last  year,  and  that  about  24,000,000  pounds  of  this  lard 
was  used,  which  would  amount  to  about  2J  pounds  to  every  steer  killed 
in  this  country,  every  head  of  cattle.  Now,  do  you  figure  that  this  is 
worth  $1  a  pound? 

Mr.  MILLER.  You  understand  that  there  is  quite  a  good  deal  of  this 
oil  exported? 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  Oh,  well,  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  this, 
you  understand.  This  bill  will  not  cut  off  the  export  business. 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  will  injure  the  export  business,  too. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  It  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  that. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  understand  that  there 
are  other  gentlemen  here  who  desire  to  be  heard,  and  it  is  now  the 
usual  hour  of  going  up  to  the  session  of  the  House.  I  move  that  we 
adjourn  until  to-morrow  morning. 

[Mr.  Miller  also  submitted  the  following  as  part  of  his  remarks :] 

[Extract  from  editorial  in  the  New  York  Produce  Review  and  American  Creamery,  issue  of 
Wednesday,  April  18, 1900.] 

In  the  first  place  there  is  every  prospect  of  a  larger  make  of  butter  in  this  country. 
Some  new  creameries  have  been  built,  farmers  are  inclined  to  give  the  dairy  more 
attention,  and  more  cows  will  be  milked  this  year.  To  what  extent  this  will  increase 
the  output  of  butter  it  is  difficult  to  determine,  but  if  the  weather  conditions  are 
reasonably  favorable  the  production  for  the  entire  country  may  be  10  per  cent 
greater  than  in  1899.  Keports  that  have  already  come  to  us  from  a  given  territory 
show  about  this  increase  for  the  first  half  of  April,  and  the  season  is  certainly  no 
earlier  than  last  year.  It  is  quite  probable  that  the  New  England  States,  New^ork 
and  Pennsylvania  may  show  a  proportionately  larger  increase  than  the  West,  as  all 
of  these  States  suifered  severely  from  an  early  drought  last  year. 

[Extract  from  editorial  in  the  Chicago  Dairy  Produce,  issue  of  Saturday,  April  7, 1900.] 
CHICAGO  BUTTER  RECEIPTS. 

A  glance  at  the  table  printed  elsewhere  in  this  issue,  showing  arrivals  of  butter 
in  this  market  for  eleven  months,  beginning  May  1, 1899,  compared  to  the  correspond- 
ing eleven  months  of  the  preceding  year,  reveals  for  the  past  four  months  quite  an 
increase.  For  last  month  this  increase  amounted  to  over  19,000  packages. 

[Extract  from  the  New  York  Produce  Review  and  American  Creamery,  issue  of  Wednesday, 

May  2,  1900.] 

GOOD  YEAR'S  BUSINESS — REVIEW  OP  THE  BUTTER  MARKET  FOR  THE  PAST  TWELVE 
MONTHS— VOLUME  OF  TRADE  WAS  LIGHTER— HIGHER  PRICES' RULE  TROUGHOUT, 
THE  AVERAGE  BEING  ABOUT  2£  CENTS  MORE  THAN  THE  PREVIOUS  YEAR. 

On  Monday  last  the  trade  year  for  butter  closed,  and  while  the  varied  experiences 
of  the  season  are  too  fresh  in  the  minds  of  most  operators  to  need  extended  com- 
ment, some  features  were  of  such  special  interest  as  to  merit  a  brief  summary. 

Ever  since  the  season  of  1896,  when  summer  prices  were  so  low,  we  have  been 
working  toward  a  higher  level  of  values,  and  the  past  season  has  made  records  that 
have  not  been  equaled  since  1893.  It  has  been  a  year  of  large  speculation  and  large 
profits.  The  high  cost  of  the  summer  product  did  not  seem  to  lessen  the  interest  in 
the  storage  deal,  and  nearly  as  much  butter  was  put  away  in  June  and  July  as  during 
the  corresponding  months  of  1898.  *  *  * 

The  storage  butter  of  the  country  was  worked  out  at  a  handsome  profit  to  holders, 
and  the  better  rates  ruling  throughout  for  the  fresh  goods  gave  satisfactory  returns 
to  the  dairymen.  It  is  true  that  the  higher  prices  ruling  for  butter  have  made  a 

(*208) 


•OLEOMAKGABINE. 


791 


much  larger  sale  for  oleomargarine,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  more  profitable  returns 
for  the  dairy  product  will  greatly  encourage  the  business  and  farmers,  who  have 
devoted  so  much  attention  to  grain  and  stock  raising,  will  now  give  attention  to  the 
dairy  herds,  believing  that  the  restoring  of  remunerative  prices  is  not  for  a  single 
season  only  but  for  some  years  to  come. 

The  fluctuations  in  prices  have  been  most  marked,  showing  a  variation  from  the 
lowest  to  the  highest  point  of  12  cents  a  pound,  and  the  average  for  the  year  was  2-J 
cents  higher  than  for  the  previous  year.  The  shortage  of  supplies  during  the  winter, 
after  the  storage  goods  were  practically  exhausted,  forced  the  market  so  high  as  to 
curtail  consumption  largely,  but  when  the  market  was  25  cents  or  less  the  movement 
was  generally  free  and  healthy. 

[Extracts  from  pages  659,  660,  and  661  of  No.  7,  Vol.  XI,  of  United  States  Experiment  Station  Kecord, 

edited  by  E.  W.  Allen,  Ph.  D.] 

The  relative  digestibility  of  several  sorts  of  fat  by  man.  I,  Margarin  and  natural  butter, 
E.  Luhrig  (Ztschr.  Untersuch.  Nahr.  u.  Genussmtl.,  2  (1899),  No.  6,  pp.  484-506).—  The 
author  reviews  the  literature  of  the  subject  and  reports  results  of  4  experiments  on 
the  digestibility  of  margarin  and  butter  made  with  a  healthy  man,  29  years  old, 
weighing  74  kg.  Holstein  butter  and  3  sorts  of  uiargarin  were  used,  called  according  to 
their  quality,  No.  1, 2,  and  3.  The  tests  were  quite  similar,  the  fat  in  each  case  form- 
ing part  of  a  mixed  diet  of  meat,  bread,  vegetables,  etc.  The  composition  of  the 
margarin  and  butter  was  determined  and  the  fat  content  of  all  the  articles  of  diet. 

The  average  results  of  the  tests  follow : 

Average  digestibility  of  margarin  and  butter. 


Fat. 

In  daily 
food. 

In  daily 
feces. 

Digested. 

Grams. 

138  35 

Grams. 
4  62 

Per  cent. 
96  68 

Margarin  No  2  consumed  with  mixed  diet  4  days    .           ...........  . 

118  64 

3  91 

96  70 

112.  89 

3.46 

96.93 

Butter  consumed  with  mixed  diet  4  days    ......  ...         ...    . 

111.79 

4  82 

95  69 

If  corrections  are  made  for  the  fat  in  the  food  supplied  by  other  materials  than 
margarin  or  butter,  the  average  coefficients  of  digestibility  in  the  4  tests  are  97.35, 
97.39,  97,90,  and  96.53  per  cent,  respectively.  The  author  studied  the  undigested 
fat  in  the  4  experiments  and  determined  the  amount  of  true  fat  in  the  undigested 
ether  extract.  Taking  account  of  these  values,  the  corrected  digestibility  of  the 
margarin  and  butter  fat  in  the  tests  reported  above  is  98.31,  98.25,  98.46,  and  97,77  per 
cent,  respectively.  In  the  author's  opinion  the  true  undigested  fat  was  not  butter  or 
margarin  fat,  and  accordingly  he  believes  that  it  is  safe  to  conclude  that  butter  and 
margarin  are  completely  digested.  (The  fat  recovered  in  the  feces  is  believed  to  be 
derived  from  the  digestive  juices  and  metabolic  products  produced  in  the  body 
during  the  experiment.)  If  it  is  insisted  upon  that  the  two  kinds  of  fat  are  not 
completely  digested,  it  must  still  be  granted  that  as  regards  digestibility  they  are 
practically  alike,  since  the  difference  is  very  small.  *  * 

From  a  study  of  the  chemical  characteristics  of  the  undigested  fat  the  author  intro- 
duces certain  corrections  in  the  above  values  and  concludes  that  97. 86  per  cent  of  the 
butter  was  actually  digested  and  97.55  per  cent  of  the  margarin.  From  a  physio- 
logical standpoint  the  2  fats  are  thought  to  be  completely  digestible  and  of  equal 
value. 

[Extract  from  pp.  375,  376,  Experiment  Station  Kecord,  Vol.  XI,  No.  4,  Department  of  Agriculture.] 

The  nutritive  value  of  margarin  compared  with  butter,  E.  Bertarelli  (Eiv.  Iq.  e.  San. 
Pubb.,  9  (1898),  Nos.  14, pp.  538-545;  15,  pp.  570-579).— Three  experiments  with  healthy 
men  are  reported,  in  which  the  value  of  margarin  and  butter  was  tested  when  con- 
sumed as  part  of  a  simple  mixed  diet.  In  one  experiment  the  value  of  a  mixture  of 
olive  oil  and  colza  oil,  which  is  commonly  used  in  Italy,  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Turin,  was  also  tested.  The  author  himself  was  the  subject  of  one  of  the  tests. 
He  was  24  years  old.  The  subjects  of  the  other  tests  were  two  laboratory  servants; 
one  27  years  old,  the  other  32  years  old.  *  *  * 

The  principal  conclusions  follow:  When  properly  prepared,  margarin  differs 
but  little  from  natural  butter  in  chemical  and  physical  properties.  On  an  average, 
93.5  to  96  per  cent  of  fat  was  assimilated  when  margarin  was  consumed,  and  94  to 

(*209) 


OLEOMARGARINE. 

96  per  cent  when  bntter  formed  part  of  the  diet.  The  moderate  nee  of  margarin 
did  not  cause  any  disturbance  of  the  digestive  tract.  (Experiment  Station  Record, 
Vol.  XI,  No.  4,  Department  of  Agriculture,  pp.  375, 376.) 

(The  committee  thereupon,  at  12  o'clock  m,  adjourned  to  meet  Thurs 
day,  May  17, 1900,  at  11  o'clock  a.  m.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  Thursday,  May  17,  1900. 

The  committee  met  at  11  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Herman  B.  Dahle  in  the 
chair. 

Present:  Representatives  Wadsworth,  Henry,  Bailey,  Wright,  Hau- 
gen,  Dahle,  Williams,  Stokes,  Lamb,  Cooney,  Allen,  and  Neville. 

Present,  also,  Professor  H.  W.  Wiley,  chief  chemist.  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture;  W.E.  Miller,  esq.,  representing  the  Armour 
Packing  Company,  Kansas  City,  Kans.;  C.  H".  Lavery,  esq.,  represent- 
ing Swift  &  Co.,  Kansas  City,  Kans. ;  Charles  Y.  Knight,  esq.,  repre- 
senting the  National  Dairy  Association,  and  others. 

STATEMENT  OF  C.  N.  LAVERY,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING  SWIFT  &  CO., 
KANSAS  CITY,  KANS. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Mr.  Lavery,  will  you  please  state  to  the 
committee  what  your  business  is? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  am  manager  of  the  butterine  or  oleomargarine  depart- 
ment of  Swift  &  Co.,  Kansas  City,  Kans. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee:  We,  as  representa- 
tives of  three  of  the  largest  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  in  the 
United  States,  beg  to  enter  our  protests  against  the  passage  of  House 
of  Representatives  bill  3717,  known  as  the  "  Grout  bill." 

The  Grout  bill,  if  enacted  by  the  voice  of  Congress,  means  the  wip- 
ing out  of  one  of  the  chief  industries  of  our  country  (that  of  the  manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine),  a  business  which  has  been  recognized  by  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  as  legitimate  and  a  common  necessity.  It 
means  the  taking  away  from  the  millions  of  laboring  men  of  the  only 
opportunity  they  have  of  procuring  a  clean,  pure,  wholesome  article  of 
food  at  a  reasonable  cost — not  as  a  luxury,  but  as  a  daily  diet.  It 
means  the  crushing  of  one  industry  and  making  a  monopoly  of  another. 

We,  as  manufacturers,  wish  to  refute  in  the  most  emphatic  terms  the 
claim  that  oleomargarine  is  placed  on  the  market  and  sold  for  butter. 
The  internal-revenue  laws  provide  that  a  manufacturer  or  wholesale 
dealer  shall  place  on  each  package  of  oleomargarine  sold  a  tax-paid 
stamp  to  the  amount  of  2  cents  for  each  pound  contained.  He  must 
also  stencil  on  it,  in  a  conspicuous  place,  the  word  "  oleomargarine,"  in 
letters  not  less  than  1  inch  square.  He  is  compelled  to  keep  a  correct 
record  of  each  package  of  oleomargarine  sold,  together  with  the  buyer's 
full  name  and  address,  which  information  is  furnished  the  honorable 
Commissioner  of  Internal  Eevenue,  through  his  various  collectors,  at 
the  end  of  each  month. 

The  retail  dealer  is  compelled  to  keep  his  stamp  (which  is  a  permit 
from  the  Government  to  sell  oleomargarine,  and  for  which  he  pays  $4 
per  month)  conspicuously  displayed.  He  is  required  to  sell  from  the 
original  package  in  lots  not  to  exceed  10  pounds,  and  to  stamp  on  the 

(*210) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  793 

outside  of  each  package  sold  the  word  "  oleomargarine  n  in  letters  not 
less  than  one  fourth  inch  square,  together  with  his  name  and  address. 

Thus  it  can  readily  be  seen  that  there  is  absolutely  no  excuse  for  a 
consumer  being  sold  oleomargarine  for  butter.  We,  as  manufacturers, 
encourage  the  handling  of  oleomargarine  strictly  in  compliance  with  the 
revenue  regulations,  furnishing  to  the  trade,  free  of  charge,  all  necessary 
stamps  for  marking  packages,  signs,  notices,  etc. 

We  desire  that  oleomargarine  be  placed  before  the  consumer  strictly 
on  its  merits. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  One  word  right  there,  if  you  please. 
Have  you  read  this  Grout  bill? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Do  you  find  any  provision  in  it  which 
would  lead  to  the  detection  of  lawbreakers  or  law  violators  any  more 
than  the  provisions  of  the  existing  law? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  One  other  question.  This  bill  increases 
the  tax  upon  oleomargarine,  when  colored,  to  10  cents? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Now,  would  or  would  not  lawbreakers 
who  have  been  violating  the  law  with  the  present  tax  have  additional 
temptation  to  violate  the  law  under  the  new  tax? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  should  say  that  they  would. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Let  me  ask  you  one  other  question. 
What  would  be  the  effect  of  the  Grout  bill  upon  honest  men,  who  have 
complied  with  the  present  law  ?  Would  it  not  mean  simply  an  increased 
expense  to  them  ? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  It  would  mean  an  increased  expense. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Unless  it  drove  them  out  of  business, 
of  course. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  And  their  business  would  be  decreased  to  such  an 
extent  that  they  would  probably  go  out  of  the  business  entirely  ? 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Now,  the  point  I  want  to  get  at  is  this: 
You  have  read  these  laws,  I  presume.  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
your  idea,  as  a  business  man,  is  that  the  effect  of  the  passage  of  the 
Grout  bill  would  be  to  punish  the  honest  dealers  and  furnish  further 
temptation  to  the  dishonest  dealers  to  violate  the  law? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

There  is  no  need  to  go  into  the  details  of  the  manufacture  of  oleomar- 
garine, as  it  has  become  such  a  well-known  article  of  commerce  that 
everyone  knows  its  general  process. 

That  the  people  want  oleomargarine  is  clearly  demonstrated  by  the 
fact  that  the  sales  in  the  United  States  increased  from  21,513,573 
pounds  in  1888  to  83,145,081  pounds  in  1899.  This  increase  is  not  due 
to  the  public  being  deceived  and  sold  oleomargarine  for  butter,  but  to 
the  fact  that  the  consumers  have  learned  the  value  of  oleomargarine 
and  ask  their  dealers  for  it. 

We  claim  the  same  right  to  color  oleomargarine  yellow  that  a  cream- 
ery claims  to  color  butter,  and  most  respectfully  ask  this  committee 
not  to  vote  to  prohibit  the  use  of  a  harmless  coloring  in  one  in  favor  of 
the  other.  We  claim  that  oleomargarine  is  not  an  imitation  of  butter, 
but  that  it  is  recognized  "in  the  exact  form  it  has  always  been  sold" 
by  the  United  States  Government  as  a  separate  and  distinct  article  of 
commerce,  and  that  through  public  use  it  is  acknowledged  to  be  at  the 
present  time  a  staple  article  of  food. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  first 

(•211) 


794  OLEOMARGARINE. 

conceived  the  idea  of  giving  to  his  product  a  uniform  color,  and  thereby 
rendering  it  more  pleasing  to  the  eye  by  the  use  of  a  harmless  coloring. 
The  creameries  throughout  the  country,  taking  advantage  of  the  idea 
suggested,  adopted  the  same  color  as  their  standard.  They  found  it 
improved  the  appearance  of  butter  as  well  as  of  oleomargarine.  Now 
these  same  creameries  come  before  Congress  and  ask  to  have  a  law 
enacted  to  force  the  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  to  abolish  the  use 
of  coloring,  claiming  that  they  have  the  exclusive  right  to  its  use. 
A  prominent  dairy  authority  writes : 

The  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  is  as  legitimate  as  that  of  butter.  It  sup- 
presses the  lower  grades  of  butter,  and  makes  the  finer  butter  more  sought  after. 
There  is  nothing  for  the  dairyman  to  fear  in  it;  his  safety  can  be  insured  by  improv- 
ing the  quality  of  his  butter.  The  trade  in  oleomargarine  might  safely  be  left  to 
itself.  It  is  a  blessing  to  the  community  to  supply  it,  at  a  low  price,  a  clean,  sweet 
substitute  for  costly  butter. 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  are  yet  some  people  in  the  butter  business 
who  are  willing  to  admit  that  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomarga- 
rine is  legitimate,  and  a  separate  and  distinct  business,  and  not  main- 
tained for  the  purpose  of  antagonizing  the  dairy  interests  of  the 
country. 

We  make  oleomargarine  because  the  people  demand  it.  We  color  it 
yellow  because  it  has  always  been  sold  that  way. 

Gentlemen,  do  you  believe  it  would  be  right  to  say  to  the  consumers 
of  this  country,  "In  future  you  will  have  to  take  your  oleomargarine 
white,  or  buy  butter?"  Do  you  think,  in  justice  to  the  oleomargarine 
manufacturers,  that  Congress  should  destroy  their  business  (which  has 
taken  years  of  labor  and  thousands  of  dollars  to  establish)  by  forcing 
them  to  place  their  product  on  the  market  in  an  unsightly  and  unsal- 
able form  1 

People  who  want  butter  should,  by  all  means,  have  it.  People  who 
buy  oleomargarine  because  they  know  it  is  good,  should  not  be  com- 
pelled to  accept  it  in  a  distasteful  form  or  go  without. 

Butter  and  oleomargarine  both  occupy  conspicuous  places  when  con- 
sidering the  demands  of  the  consumers  of  this  country,  and  neither 
should  be  discriminated  against  for  the  sake  of  the  other,  but  they 
should  be  placed  on  an  equal  basis  and  sold  on  their  merits. 

The  creamery  interests  have  no  more  right  to  say  we  shall  not  color 
oleomargarine  than  we  have  to  say  they  shall  not  color  butter. 

It  has  been  said  that  if  Congress  forbids  the  coloring  of  oleomarga- 
rine it  should  also  forbid  the  coloring  of  butter.  This  is  wrong.  Con- 
gress should  not  forbid  the  coloring  of  either,  but  should  encourage 
the  coloring  of  these  products,  in  order  to  enhance  the  value  and 
sightliness  of  both. 

Again,  it  has  been  claimed  that  our  packages  are  in  imitation  of 
those  used  for  butter.  Our  packages  consist  of  more  than  20  dif- 
ferent styles  against  two  standard  butter  packages,  viz,  solid  packed 
tubs  and  1-pound  square  prints  or  bricks.  The  latter  style  of  pack- 
age originated  with  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers,  and  has  been 
adopted  by  the  creameries. 

Sixty  per  cent  of  our  production  goes  on  the  market  in  packages 
known  as  rolls  and  prints,  which  are  wrapped  in  printed  parchment 
paper,  as  per  samples,  which  we  herewith  respectfully  submit  to  your 
honorable  body  for  inspection. 

(Mr.  Lavery  at  this  point  exhibited  to  the  committee  samples  of 
wrappers  for  packages  of  oleomargarine.) 

Mr.  LAVERY.  You  will  notice,  gentlemen,  that  the  word  "oleomar- 
garine" is  plainly  printed  on  each  of  those  wrappers  in  letters  the  size 

(*212) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  795 

of  the  largest  letters  in  the  brand,  which  is  strictly  in  compliance  with 
the  internal  revenue  regulations. 

Kepresentative  HENRY.  Allow  me  to  ask  where  in  the  country  those 
packages  are  retailed  ? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  sell  them  in  the  entire  West.  My  house  does  busi- 
ness in  the  western  territory,  and  these  are  our  standard  brands.  Those 
wrappers  have  been  approved  by  the  honorable  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Kevenue. 

Kepresentative  ALLEN.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  each  pack- 
age has  a  wrapper  of  that  kind  around  it  ? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  I  do  not  make  the  statement  that  all 
of  our  rolls  and  prints  are  put  up  in  that  wrapper;  but  the  majority  of 
them  are. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Why  not  all? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  can  not  print  a  cloth  wrapper,  for  the  reason  that 
we  have  not  been  able  to  secure  an  ink  which  will  not  run,  after  the 
cloth  becomes  moist  from  the  damp  and  moisture  in  the  oleomargarine. 
It  runs  through  and  discolors  the  goods  underneath.  But  ink  will 
stand  on  a  parchment  paper;  and  therefore  we  use  that  wrapper  as 
much  as  possible. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  How  are  these  packages  which  are  put 
up  in  cloth  branded? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  They  are  not  branded  at  all.  The  cases  containing 
them  are  branded  in  accordance  with  the  regulations. 

Kepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Those  you  put  in  cloth,  then,  are  con- 
tained in  wooden  cases,  and  the  cases  are  branded,  are  they? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir;  they  are  packed  in  wooden  cases  or  tubs,  and 
the  outside  of  the  package  or  tub  is  properly  marked. 

Kepresentative  WILLIAMS.  The  law  requires,  does  it  not,  that  they 
shall  be  put  in  packages  either  of  wood  or  of  paper,  and  that  the  pack- 
ages are  to  be  branded? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir;  the  law  requires  that  what  is  known  as  an 
original  package  (which  is  a  package  containing  ten  pounds  or  more) 
must  be  branded  with  the  word  u  Oleomargarine,"  in  letters  not  less 
than  one  inch  square,  and  shall  bear  the  manufacturer's  name. 

Kepresentative  ALLEN.  I  do  not  suppose  there  is  any  question  about 
the  law.  That  law  speaks  for  itself,  and  I  do  not  suppose  there  will 
be  any  dispute  about  it;  so  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  consume  time  on 
that  point. 

Kepresentative  HENRY.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  be  permitted,  I 
would  like  to  ask  a  question  just  for  information.  We  had,  some  little 
time  ago,  an  exhibit  made  of  quite  a  large  number  of  pound  packages, 
bought  of  dealers  in  Chicago,  a  pound  of  oleomargarine  in  each.  They 
were  wrapped  in  ordinary  brown  paper,  a  sheet  four  times  as  large  as 
that  [indicating] — heavy  brown  paper.  The  four  corners  were  turned 
down  like  that  [indicating].  Under  one  corner  there  was  printed  the 
word  "  Oleomargarine.77 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  HENRY.  The  packages,  in  each  case,  were  handed  out 
by  the  retailer  in  response  to  an  inquiry  for  butter.  In  order  to  deter- 
mine that  the  law  had  been  complied  with,  the  purchaser  would  have 
had  to  turn  down  and  examine  critically  each  one  of  the  four  corners. 
I  wish  to  ask  if  you  have  any  knowledge  of  that  practice;  and  if  so,  how 
far  it  obtains  in  your  part  of  the  country? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  have  heard  of  a  few  isolated  cases  of  that  kind.  In 
the  majority  of  cases  the  customer  would  ask  for  oleomargarine,  but 

(*213) 


796  OLEOMARGARINE. 

would  require  it  not  to  be  stamped;  but  the  dealer,  in  order  to  comply 
with  the  regulation,  would  stamp  it  and  turn  down  the  corners  in  the 
manner  you  have  mentioned. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question.  Doing  that 
was  a  violation  of  the  law,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  LA  VERY.  Well,  strictly  speaking,  I  should  say  it  was;  yes. 

Kepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Is  there  anything  in  the  Grout  bill  that 
would  prevent  that  violation  of  law  I 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  What  is  your  purpose  or  reason  for  not 
wrapping  all  these  packages  with  this  branded  paper?  Why  do  you 
wrap  some  with  that  and  some  without?  Please  explain  that  to  the 
committee. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  have  some  trade  which  does  not  care  for  the  printed 
wrappers,  for  reasons  of  its  own ;  of  course  we  are  in  business  to  give 
the  people  what  they  want,  as  long  as  we  can  do  so  consistently;  and 
we  do  not  refuse  to  fill  their  orders  for  plain-paper  prints. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  You  sell  to  the  jobbers,  do  you? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir;  we  sell  to  the  jobbers  and  retail  dealers. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  And  you  sell  to  retail  dealers  also? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  About  what  proportion  of  your  output  is  put 
up  in  the  wrappers  of  this  kind,  and  what  in  the  other  packages? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  would  say  that  about  60  per  cent  of  our  product  goes 
on  the  market  in  rolls  and  prints,  and  of  that  60  per  cent  I  would  say 
50  per  cent  goes  out  in  this  style  of  package,  wrapped  in  branded 
paper. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  And  the  other  10  per  cent,  say,  goes  out  in 
the  other  shape? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  In  cloth  wrappers,  or  occasionally  a  plain  paper 
wrapper. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Now,  you  supply  those  wrappers  yourselves, 
do  you? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Oh,  yes;  yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Do  you  use  any  ordinary  brown  wrapping 
paper  for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir;  we  do  not. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  You  do  not  use  any  of  that? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  do  not. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Do  you  stamp  each  one  of  those  papers  that 
you  use? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Only  in  this  manner.    [Exhibiting  wrappers.] 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  As  to  these  original  packages,  where  you 
put  them  out  without  putting  this  brand  on  them,  the  law  provides  that 
the  retail  dealer,  when  he  sells  the  separate  packages,  shall  re  wrap 
them,  and  stamp  "Oleomargarine"  on  them;  does  it  not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir:  for  which  purpose  we  furnish  to  all  retail 
trade,  free  of  charge,  a  rubber  stamp,  made  strictly  in  accordance  with 
the  internal-revenue  regulations. 

Eepresentative  BAILEY.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Permit  us  to  ask,  gentlemen,  would  it  be  possible  to 
sell  to  a  consumer  who  can  read  the  English  language,  one  of  these 
packages  for  butter? 

There  have  recently  appeared,  in  certain  newspapers,  editorials  and 
interviews  regarding  the  purity  of  oleomargarine.  Some  people  through 
ignorance,  or  with  a  desire  to  deceive,  have  made  the  statement  that 
all  kinds  of  fats,  with  no  regard  to  their  condition,  are  used  in  its  man* 

(•214) 


OLEOMABG  AKINE  797 

ufacture.  They  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  say  that  fats  from  animals 
which  have  died  of  disease  and  scraps  from  retail  meat  markets  and 
hotels— in  fact,  anything  of  a  fatty  nature  that  can  be  procured  at  a 
low  cost— enter  into  the  manufacture  of  this  product. 

I  want  to  say  to  this  committee  that  all  such  stories  emanate  from 
people  who  know  absolutely  nothing  of  the  subject  they  are  discuss- 
ing, or  are  malicious  falsehoods  given  out  for  the  purpose  of  creating 
prejudice  against  oleomargarine.  The  ingredients  of  oleomargarine 
are  of  so  delicate  a  nature  that  the  greatest  care  is  absolutely  necessary 
in  their  preparation.  We  could  not  use  an  inferior  oil  if  we  wanted  to, 
because  the  product  made  from  it  would  not  be  salable.  Oleomar- 
garine, to  be  acceptable  to  the  consumer,  must  be  pure,  sweet,  and 
wholesome;  and  in  order  to  have  it  so  we  must  use  the  choicest  of 
ingredients  in  its  manufacture.  Both  oleo  oil  and  neutral  lard,  as  well 
as  oleomargarine  itself,  are  by  nature  very  susceptible  to  foreign  flavors 
of  any  kind.  So  much  so,  in  fact,  that  were  a  whole  carload  of  either 
shipped  in  a  refrigerator  car  containing  a  single  box  of  oranges,  the 
flavor  from  the  oranges  would  penetrate  the  other  contents  of  the  car 
to  such  an  extent  that  they  would  be  rendered  useless  for  the  purposes 
for  which  they  were  intended.  It  can,  therefore,  readily  be  seen  that 
the  newspaper  stories  above  referred  to  are  so  utterly  ridiculous  and 
impossible  that  they  deserve  no  consideration  whatever. 

To  verify  my  statements  in  this  regard,  I  take  pleasure  in  referring 
to  Prof.  Henry  Morton's  statement  before  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Agriculture  and  Forestry  in  the  year  1886.  In  the  course  of  that  state- 
ment, in  reply  to  Senator  Jones,  who  asked  about  the  "vile  compounds  n 
which  are  used  in  making  oleomargarine,  Professor  Morton  said: 

To  anyone  who  knows  about  it  these  stories  are  simply  absurd.  It  is  utterly 
impossible  to  do  any  such  thing.  As  I  have  said,  if  the  animal  has  been  dead  a 
short  time  the  fat  can  not  be  used.  For  instance,  you  can  not  use  fat  from  the  meat 
which  is  hung  up  and  exposed  for  sale  in  the  market  for  the  purpose  of  making  oleo- 
margarine. Although  such  meat  is  not  hurt  for  ordinary  use  and  can  be  cooked  and 
eaten,  the  fat  of  it  would  be  utterly  ruined  for  the  purpose  of  making  oleomarga- 
rine. 

Professor  Chandler,  testifying  before  the  same  committee,  said,  at  the 
commencement  of  his  remarks: 

I  would  not,  of  course,  wish  to  take  up  the  time  of  the  committee  by  repeating 
anything  that  Dr.  Morton  has  said,  but  I  will  say  at  the  outset  that  I  agree  with 
Dr.  Morton  in  every  statement  that  he  has  made. 

Professor  Chandler  also  said : 

Some  of  you  remember,  I  presume,  that  before  the  discovery  of  the  passage  around 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  to  India  the  only  dyestuff  cultivated  to  any  extent  in  Eng- 
land was  woad,  an  inferior  dye  which  our  ancestors  employed  for  dyeing  their 
products.  When  the  trade  with  Bengal  sprang  up  indigo  was  brought  to  England, 
and  immediately  there  was  a  great  hue  and  cry  made  against  indigo.  It  was  said 
that  it  was  going  to  ruin  the  woad  farmer  of  England,  and  they  called  it  devil's 
dirt — Teufeladrockh  was  the  name  in  German— and  it  was  made  a  capital  crime  in 
England,  France,  and  Germany  for  anybody  to  be  caught  with  indigo  on  his  prem- 
ises. It  was  not  suggested  that  it  should  be  colored  blue,  because  that  was  its  natu- 
ral color,  and  it  was  not  necessary.  Soon  after  logwood  was  discovered  in  Honduras, 
and  when  it  was  attempted  to  introduce  it  into  England  as  a  dye  laws  were  passed 
against  it;  and  we  have  had  that  kind  of  legislation  always. 

It  is  not  many  years  since  a  petition  was  presented  to  Parliament,  in  England, 
protesting  against  the  use  of  hops  in  beer,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  destroy  the 
digestion  of  the  English  people.  There  was  a  similar  attempt  at  legislation  in 
regard  to  the  burning  of  soft  coal.  They  had  used  only  wood  and  charcoal  in 
England,  and  when  it  was  proposed  to  take  coal  out  of  the  ground  and  bring  it  to 
London  they  said  it  would  ruin  the  industry  of  the  people  who  cut  wood  in  the 
forests  to  make  charcoal;  that  it  was  unhealthy,  and  would  make  a  smoke  that 
would  get  into  the  lungs  of  the  knights  who  came  from  the  country  to  Parliament 
to  sit  and  legislate  for  the  people. 

(*215) 


798  OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  demand  for  oleomargarine  is  due  to  education.  The  public  has 
become  acquainted  with  oleomargarine  through  a  disposition  on  the 
part  of  the  manufacturers  to  teach  it.  Our  factory  is  always  open  to 
the  inspection  of  the  public.  We  are  always  at  home  to  visitors. 
Nothing  gives  us  more  pleasure  than  to  see  a  party  of  visitors  approach- 
ing our  oleomargarine  factory.  We  have  no  secrets.  Every  branch  of 
our  business,  from  churning  to  shipping,  continues  in  the  presence  of 
visitors. 

It  is  our  pleasure  to  show  the  public  every  ingredient  of  oleomarga- 
rine going  through  its  course  of  preparation.  Our  churns,  and  every 
utensil  used  in  connection  with  oleomargarine,  are  as  sweet  and  clean 
as  hot  water  and  steam  will  make  them.  Our  floors  are  cleaner  than 
the  average  dining  table. 

We  claim  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  germ  life  to  exist  in  our 
oleomargarine  factory,  and  we  want  the  public  to  come  and  see  for 
themselves.  These  are  the  reasons  the  oleomargarine  business  is 
growing,  and  not  that  this  product  is  palmed  off  on  innocent  purchasers 
for  butter. 

In  the  face  of  an  increasing  production  of  butter  in  the  United  States, 
and  advancing  prices  for  this  product— the  Elgin  market  ruling  higher 
the  past  year  than  at  any  time  since  1804 — we  ask,  gentlemen,  do  you 
think  this  article  of  food  is  really  suffering  for  the  want  of  such  protec- 
tion as  the  creamery  interests  are  asking  Congress  to  give  it? 

The  passing  of  the  Grout  bill  would  be  one  of  the  most  unjust  pieces 
of  class  legislation  ever  enacted.  It  would  mean  that  thousands  of 
families  would  actually  be  deprived  of  one  of  the  necessities  of  life,  as 
they  could  not  pay  the  prices  asked  for  butter,  and  would  not  buy 
oleomargarine  in  the  form  this  measure  asks  us  to  make  it. 

Gentlemen,  we  ask  you,  in  justice  to  the  business  to  which  the  Grout 
bill  means  a  death  blow,  and  in  justice  to  the  thousands  of  consumers 
throughout  the  country,  not  to  recommend  the  passage  of  the  Grout 
bill  by  Congress,  thus  placing  your  stamp  of  approval  upon  a  measure 
which,  if  enacted,  will  destroy  a  legitimate  business,  make  a  monopoly 
of  another,  and  work  one  of  the  greatest  of  hardships  on  the  laboring 
men  and  consumers  of  this  country  forever  afterwards. 

Permit  us,  gentlemen,  to  thank  you  for  the  privilege  of  being  heard 
before  your  most  honorable  body. 

Representative  ALLEN.  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  sir,  about  what 
amount  of  capital  your  company  has  invested  in  this  industry  ?  I  refer 
to  this  industry  alone,  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  LA  VERY.  Swift  &  Co.  have  two  oleomargarine  factories,  one  at 
Chicago,  and  one  at  Kansas  City.  At  Kansas  City  we  have,  I  should 
say,  taking  the  cost  of  the  plant  and  of  wholesale  licenses,  etc.,  an  invest- 
ment of  $500,000. 

Representative  ALLEN.  In  the  two  plants! 

Mr.  LA  VERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  ALLEN.  How  many  employees  have  you  who  are 
engaged  exclusively  in  this  industry? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  At  the  factories  alone  we  employ  about  260  people,  all 
told. 

Representative  ALLEN.  In  both  factories  t 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir.  Aside  from  that  we  have  salaried  represent- 
atives all  over  the  country. 

Representative  ALLEN.  Does  your  knowledge  serve  you  as  to  whether 
these  employees  are  mostly  men  of  family — whether  married  men  pre- 
dominate among  them  or  not? 

(*216) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  799 

Mr.  LA  VERY.  As  a  rule,  yes,  sir.  The  majority  of  the  men  employed 
by  our  factory  at  Kansas  City  are  married  men. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Can  you  tell  this  committee  about  the  aver- 
age pay  which  you  give  them  per  day? 

Mr.  L AVERT.  The  average  for  ordinary  labor,  I  should  say,  is  about 
$18  to  $20  a  week.  Skilled  laborers  and  foremen  of  departments  will 
earn  $25  and  $30  per  week. 

^Representative  ALLEN.  Will  the  abolition  of  this  industry  throw  those 
men  out  of  employment? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  It  certainly  will. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Have  you  any  knowledge,  personally,  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  production  of  oleomargarine  increases  the  price  of 
beef  cattle? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Will  you  tell  the  committee  about  that? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Each  beef  contains  about  50  pounds  of  fat,  known  as 
caul  fat,  from  which  oleo  oil  is  made.  Should  we  not  utilize  this  fat 
in  the  production  of  oleo  oil,  it  would  go  on  the  market  as  a  cheaper 
fat,  on  the  basis  of  tallow,  and  at  a  difference  in  price  to-day  of  about 
4  cents  a  pound. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  That  is  the  difference  between  tallow  and 
oleo  oil? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir.  In  the  tallow  and  oleo  oil  markets  to-day 
there  is  a  difference  of  about  4  cents  a  pound.  That  would  mean  a 
difference  in  the  price  of  the  50  pounds  of  caul  fat  taken  from  each  beef 
equal  to  $2  a  head. 

Now,  you  might  go  further,  and  say  that  were  the  oleo-oil  production 
of  this  country  discontiued,  and  that  fat  thrown  into  tallow,  it  would 
result  in  an  increased  production  of  tallow,  and  would  naturally  force 
the  tallow  market  down  far  below  what  it  is  to-day.  Of  course  you 
can  not  tell  where  it  would  go,  but  it  would  do  away  with  the  use  of  oleo 
oil,  and  that  fat  would  have  to  be  sold  as  a  cheaper  fat. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Where  do  you  get  your  fat?  From  the  beef 
you  kill  yourselves? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir;  entirely. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  From  what  part  of  the  country  is  your 
product  generally  derived?  In  what  part  of  the  country  do  you  get 
your  tallow  principally. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  From  the  entire  West — Kansas,  Nebraska,  Colorado, 
New  Mexico,  Arizona,  Texas — in  fact,  you  might  say,  from  every  State 
west  of  the  Mississippi  Eiver. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Do  you  know  the  average  number  of  cattle 
you  slaughter  per  year? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  There  were  slaughtered  at  Kansas  City  last  year 
1,912,019  head  of  cattle.  Now,  Swift  &  Co.  killed,  I  presume,  one- 
quarter  of  that  number — I  would  say  one-third  of  that  number. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  It  is  claimed  by  the  advocates  of  the  Grout 
bill  that  the  average  increase  in  the  price  of  each  steer  slaughtered  is 
only  about  40  cents,  I  believe,  taking  the  whole  number  of  cattle 
slaughtered  in  the  United  States,  together  with  the  value  of  the  oil 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine.  Have  you  any  information 
on  that  point? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  You  will  understand  that  we  use  the  entire  caul  fat 
from  the  beef  in  making  oleo  oil.  We  do  not  consume  all  of  that  oleo 
oil  ourselves;  we  export  a  great  deal  of  it. 

(*217) 


800  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Kepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Let  me  ask  you,  right  there,  whether  or 
not  you  export  it  as  oleo  oil. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  As  oleo  oil. 

Eepresentative  .WILLIAMS.  As  oleo  oil,  and  not  as  oleomargarine  f 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Now,  about  what  proportion  of  that  do  you 
consume  and  what  proportion  do  you  export? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  consume,  ourselves,  a  fourth,  I  should  say,  of  our 
entire  production. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Now,  do  you  think  that  the  prohibition  of 
the  use  of  oleo  oil  here,  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  would 
have  any  effect  upon  that  export  production  ? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  It  most  certainly  would. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Foreign  countries,  and  especially  Germany,  are  watch- 
ing for  every  opportunity  to  legislate  against  the  entrance  of  American 
meats  and  by-products,  and  if  our  own  Congress  should  pass  a  law 
which  would  practically  kill  the  oleo  industry  in  this  country  we  have 
no  reason  to  believe  that  Germany  and  other  European  countries  would 
not  take  similar  action  and  prohibit  the  entrance  into  their  country  of 
oleo  oil  and  such  materials  as  we  have  legislated  against  ourselves;  and 
such  action  would  therefore  kill,  or  at  least  greatly  injure,  the  export 
oleo-oil  business. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  I  will  ask  you  another  question  with  regard 
to  the  cotton-seed  oil  that  you  use  in  the  production  of  this  material. 
Do  you  use  any  of  that! 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  To  what  extent? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  The  four  principal  ingredients  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  oleomargarine  are  oleo  oil,  neutral  lard,  milk  and  cream,  and  cotton- 
seed oil.  Of  those  four  ingredients  cotton-seed  oil  comprises  about 
25  per  cent.  We  are  now  using  on  an  average,  we  will  say,  for  the 
year,  about  a  car  of  cotton -seed  oil  a  week,  or  four  cars  a  month. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  How  much  is  a  car? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  From  32,000  to  35,000  pounds. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  What  grade  of  cotton-seed  oil  do  you  use? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  The  very  best  grade  of  cotton-seed  oil,  known  as  butter 
oil — highly  refined  cotton-seed  oil. 

Eepresentative  ALLEN.  Of  your  personal  knowledge  what  class  of 
people  generally  consume  oleomargarine  in  your  city,  where  you  live? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  All  classes  of  people  buy  oleomargarine;  but  the  mass 
of  buyers,  I  should  say,  are  among  the  laboring  class  of  people. 

Eepresentative  HENRY.  Mr.  Lavery,  can  you  explain  the  discrepancy 
between  your  statement  as  regards  the  percentage  of  cotton-seed  oil 
you  use  and  the  official  statement  made  in  reply  to  an  inquiry  of  Con- 
gress by  the  Internal-Kevenue  Bureau? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir;  I  stated  that 

Eepresentative  HENRY.  The  report,  as  I  understand,  shows  the  use 
of  about  10  per  cent ;  you  say  you  use  about  25.  It  may  be  that  you 
use  more  than  other  manufacturers. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  stated  that  oleomargarine  consists  of  four  principal 
ingredients — oleo  oil,  neutral  lard,  inilk  and  cream,  and  cotton-seed  oil. 
Now,  of  those  four  ingredients  cotton  seed  oil  comprises  about  25  per 
cent.  Of  course,  we  add  salt  and  coloring  matter. 

Eepresentative  HENRY.  The  Commissioner  of  Internal  Eevenue,  in 

(*218) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  801 

response  to  an  inquiry  from  Congress,  says  that  about  10  per  cent  of 
cotton- seed  oil  is  used. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  He  says  10  per  cent  of  all  ingredients.  He  gives  here 
neutral  lard,  oleo  oil,  cotton-seed  oil,  sesame  oil,  coloring  matter,  sugar, 
glycerin,  stearin,  glucose,  milk,  salt,  butter,  oil,  and  cream.  I  am  tak- 
ing the  four  principal  ingredients. 

Representative  HENRY.  I  simply  wish  you  would  explain  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two  statements. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  am  leaving  out  a  great  many  of  the  small  items  which 
are  given  in  that  statement,  and  taking  the  four  principal  ingredients. 

Representative  HENRY.  Then  allow  me  to  ask  you  what  percentage 
cotton-seed  oil  is  of  your  gross  product? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  would  say,  taking  all  the  materials  used,  that  this 
statement  is  about  correct. 

Representative  HENRY.  That  is  all. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question  or  two. 
Of  what  is  oleo  oil  composed — just  the  fat  of  which  you  speak,  the 
caul  fat? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  The  caul  fat  alone  t 

Mr.  LAVERY.  The  caul  fat  alone. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  How  much  of  that  oleo  oil  did  your  firm 
produce  last  year?  Have  you  not  got  those  figures'? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  have  not  got  those  figures  at  hand;  no,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  You  have  them  on  your  books  at  Kansas 
City? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  have.  I  can  furnish  them,  but  I  can  not  give 
them  offhand. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  you  speak  of  being  unable  to  sell  this 
material  unless  it  is  colored? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Asa  matter  of  fact,  if  it  is  wholesome,  and 
the  people  want  it,  will  they  not  buy  it  when  it  is  not  colored? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  If  it  is  placed  on  the  same  basis  with  butter,  I  should 
say  that  in  the  course  of  time  we  could  educate  the  people  to  buy  uncol- 
ored  butteriue  the  same  as  uncolored  butter.  But  they  have  always 
bought  oleomargarine  colored.  It  has  always  been  colored  since  we 
first  began  to  manufacture  it  in  this  country.  The  people  are  educated 
to  the  use  of  colored  oleomargarine,  and  they  do  not  want  to  buy  it 
otherwise. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  coloring  adds 
nothing  to  its  quality,  except  simply  as  far  as  its  appearance  is  con- 
cerned ? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Nothing  except  the  appearance. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  you  also  stated  that  your  trade  was 
largely  in  the  West. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  You  have  been  selling,  and  did  sell  last 
year,  and  year  before  last,  in  Nebraska  very  largely,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Is  it  not  true,  when  you  say  there  are  cer- 
tain customers  who,  for  their  own  reasons,  desire  to  have  the  oleomar- 
garine go  out  without  the  brand  upon  it,  that  that  is  for  the  purpose 
of  enabling  it  to  be  sold  in  those  States  where  there  is  a  law  against 
coloring  it* 

*  S.  Rep.  2043 51 


802  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  there  was  a  lot  of  your  manufactured 
product  sold  in  Nebraska  last  year  and  the  year  before,  was  there  not! 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  do  some  business  in  Nebraska;  yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  is  it  not  true  that  there  is  and  has 
been  right  along  a  law  upon  the  statute  books  there  which  prohibits 
the  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of  butter. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Well,  there  has  been  a  law  there,  but  it  has  been  in 
litigation. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  But  is  it  not  true  that  this  butterine  of 
yours  which  was  sold  in  Nebraska,  colored,  had  to  be  sold  as  butter,  or 
it  could  not  have  been  sold? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  think  so. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Have  you  traveled  through  Nebraska 
lately? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  have  been  in  Nebraska;  yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  And  have  you  seen  establishments  there 
selling  colored  oleomargarine  branded  as  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Tell  me  one  place  where  you  saw  it. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Omaha  has  a  number  of  stores  which  handle  oleo- 
margarine, pay  the  internal-revenue  license,  and  sell  it  as  oleomarga- 
rine. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  And  have  it  branded  as  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Notwithstanding  this  law  on  the  statute 
books? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir.  We  have  ourselves  sent  in  the  last  three 
months  at  least  a  dozen  oleomargarine  stamps  to  retail  dealers  in 
Omaha. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  In  the  last  three  months? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  that  was  since  the  lower  court  held 
that  the  law,  for  technical  reasons  with  reference  to  its  passage,  was 
not  constitutional,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  have  always  furnished  the  stamps  necessary  for 
the  marking  of  packages  in  Omaha;  and  I  believe  the  Omaha  dealers, 
without  exception,  handle  oleomargarine  and  sell  it  for  exactly  what 
it  is. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Do  you  not  know  that  a  firm  there  in  Omaha 
was  fined  $800  only  a  short  time  ago  for  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter, 
and  that  they  have  now  got  an  application  before  the  Internal  Revenue 
Department  here,  which  was  put  in  through  me,  to  have  that  money 
returned  to  them  ? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  do  not  know,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  The  application  was  put  in  through  me, 
and  I  was  called  upon  to  assist  in  getting  the  money  returned  to  them. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  do  not  know  that,  no,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Well,  I  say  to  you  that  that  is  true. 

(After  informal  discussion  among  members  of  the  committee) 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Suppose  there  were  a  law  of  the  United 
States  taxing  butter,  when  colored  artificially  in  any  manner,  10  cents 
a  pound;  do  you  think  it  would  interfere  with  the  sale  of  butter? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  most  certainly  do.  It  would  be  a  pretty  good  thing 
for  butterine. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Then  a  law  taxing  oleomargarine  to  that 

(*220) 


OLEOMARGARINE.  803 

amount  would  interfere  witii  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  for  exactly  the 
same  reasons,  would  it  not1? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir.  A  law  of  that  kind  would  be  a  pretty  good 
thing  for  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now,  is  it  not  true  that  if  oleomargarine 
were  not  put  up  in  such  shape  that  it  could  be  sold  apparently  as  but- 
ter, oleomargarine  would  sell  to  the  poor  people,  who,  you  say,  want  it, 
for  a  much  lower  price  than  it  does  in  its  present  form  ? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  do  not  think  so.  I  think  the  vast  majority  of  the 
oleomargarine  sold  in  this  country  is  sold  for  oleomargarine. 

Kepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now,  then,  you  know  that  a  majority  of 
the  States  in  the  Union  have  laws  prohibiting  the  coloring  of  oleomar- 
garine in  imitation  of  butter,  do  you  not1? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  In  those  States  which  have  such  laws  will 
you  explain  to  me  how  you  sell  oleomargarine  as  Such,  and  yet  colored 
as  butter,  without  violating  those  laws? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Well,  1  can  only  say  that  the  people  want  oleomar- 
garine even  in  the  anticolor  States,  and,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  there 
are  laws  on  the  statute  books  prohibiting  the  sale  of  the  product  col- 
ored yellow,  there  is  such  a  demand  for  it  that  in  a  great  many  of  the 
States  there  is  very  little  attention  paid  to  the  enforcement  of  that  law. 
Take  the  Southern  States,  for  example. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  would  not  the  same  thing  be  true 
with  reference  to  the  peddlers  of  green  goods,  if  there  were  such  a 
demand  for  them? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  do  not  think  that  is  a  fair  comparison. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Perhaps  not;  it  may  be  extravagant. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  By  the  way,  Mr.  Neville,  do  you  contend 
that  the  law  of  the  State  of  Nebraska  forbidding  a  man  to  manufac- 
ture colored  oleomargarine  in  Kansas  and  ship  it  into  Nebraska  in  the 
original  package  is  a  constitutional  and  valid  law? 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Why,  I  confess  that,  like  all  other  matters 
of  the  kind,  it  comes  under  the  police-regulation  law;  but  I  say  that 
when  the  packages  get  into  Nebraska  and  are  broken,  if  their  contents 
are  then  sold  as  colored  oleomargarine  they  are  sold  in  violation  of  law. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  Your  opinion  and  mine,  then,  coincide, 
of  course? 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  There  is  no  question  about  that.  I  think 
we  both  know  what  the  law  is.  But  you  can  not  ship  oleomargarine 
there,  and  break  the  packages  and  sell  it,  except  in  violation  of  law. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  No;  that  comes  under  the  local  law. 
But  these  people  who  manufacture  oleomargarine  in  other  States  are 
not  amenable  to  any  law  of  Nebraska. 

Eepreseutative  NEVILLE.  Mr.  Lavery,  let  me  ask  you  just  another 
question.  In  what  sized  packages  do  you  ship  colored  oleomargarine 
to  the  retailers  in  Nebraska? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Our  packages  range  from  30  to  60  pounds;  that  is,  for 
the  retail  trade. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  In  one  caddy! 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  When  the  retailer  gets  it  in  Nebraska,  he 
is  compelled,  if  he  sells  it  pound  by  pound,  to  break  the  package,  is  he 
not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  sell 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Answer  that  question, 

(*221) 


804  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  What  is  your  question  f 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  The  retailer  who  sells  it  in  Nebraska, 
pound  by  pound,  is  compelled  to  break  the  package  when  he  sells  it 
there,  is  he  not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Certainly. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  ship  any  amount  of  oleomargarine  to  Nebraska,  to 
the  city  of  Omaha  and  other  places. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  1  know  it;  I  live  there  and  I  know  all 
about  it. 

Representative  COONEY.  Mr.  Lavery,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  ques- 
tion. Have  you  any  figures  in  your  statement  here  with  reference  to 
the  values  placed  upon  cattle  for  slaughtering  purposes,  with  reference 
to  the  oleo  oil  which  is  made  from  the  fat? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  have  not  prepared  any  figures;  no,  sir. 

Representative  CO'ONEY.  You  have  none,  then,  in  your  statement 
here? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir.    What  information  did  you  want,  Mr.  Cooney? 

Representative  COONEY.  I  wanted  information  in  regard  to  the  value 
which  this  oleomargarine  business  gives  to  cattle. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  stated  a  while  ago  that  there  are  about  50  pounds  01 
caul  fat  taken  from  each  beef. 

Representative  COONEY.  Yes;  you  state  that  from  memory,  do  you 
not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  That  is  an  actual  fact.  There  is  an  average  of  50 
pounds  to  a  beef,  and  that  is  the  fat  from  which  oleo  oil  is  made. 

Representative  COONEY.  Yes;  I  understand  that. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  There  is  to  day  a  difference  between  the  price  of  oleo 
oil  and  tallow 

Representative  COONEY.  I  understand  that  perfectly;  you  went  all 
over  that.  Now,  do  you  say  that  all  of  this  fat  is  made  into  oleo  oil? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir, 

Representative  COONEY.  In  all  the  beeves  that  are  slaughtered? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  COONEY.  That  is  the  general  method  pursued  by 
slaughtering  institutions? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  so. 

Representative  COONEY.  To  devote  this  part  of  the  animal  to  the 
manufacture  of  oleo  oil? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  that  is  the  method  generally  pursued. 

Representative  COONEY.  Now,  this  oleo  oil  is  either  manufactured 
into  oleomargarine  here  or  is  shipped  abroad? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  COONEY.  And  you  say  that  of  the  fat  which  your 
institution  receives  you  utilize  about  one  fourth  in  the  manufacture  ol 
oleomargarine? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  right. 

Representative  COONEY.  And  the  balance  you  ship.  Those  answers 
were  drawn  from  you  by  questions  asked  by  Mr.  Neville.  Have  you 
any  figures  at  hand  to  show  just  what  amount  you  use  and  what 
amount  you  ship? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir.  .  I  stated  a  while  ago  that  I  could  furnish 
those  figures,  but  I  have  not  them  at  band  now. 

Representative  COONEY.  You  did  not  really  charge  your  mind  with 
them  when  you  left  home,  did  you?  You  did  not  charge  your  mind 
with  the  figures  on  that  particular  subject? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  805 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir. 

Representative  COONBY.  And  what  you  state  is  simply  from  your 
best  information  on  that  subject,  according  to  your  recollection? 

Mr.  LAVEBY.  And  from  experience. 

Kepresentative  COONEY.  Now,  there  is  another  question  in  connec- 
tion with  that  matter  which  I  want  to  ask,  and  that  is,  if,  in  making 
this  statement,  you  meant  to  say  that  to  the  stock  raisers  of  the  country 
their  beef  cattle  are  worth  $2  per  head  more  than  they  would  be  if 
there  was  no  manufacture  of  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  The  figures  certainly  show  that. 

Representative  COONEY.  These  $2  go,  then,  to  the  cattle  raiser,  do 
they? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  COONEY.  None  of  that  amount  goes  to  the  oleomar- 
garine manufacturer? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Why  should  it?  If  it  increases  the  value  of  a  beef 
steer,  the  man  who  owns  the  beef  steer  certainly  reaps  the  benefit  of  it. 

Representative  COONEY.  Then  the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  and 
the  man  who  buys  and  slaughters  the  steer  make  none  of  this  extra 
profit;  that  is,  they  receive  none  of  this  extra  profit  of  $2. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  do  not  see  how  they  could,  except  the  profit  through 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine. 

Representative  COONEY.  Well,  do  they  receive  part  of  that  $2  in  that 
way;  and  if  so,  how  much? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  None  whatever,  that  I  can  see. 

Representative  COONEY.  Do  they  receive  any  profit  on  the  balance 
of  the  beef,  then? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  How  is  that,  sir? 

Representative  COONEY.  Do  they  receive  any  of  the  profit  out  of  the 
balance  of  the  beef,  or  is  it  all  given  to  the  cattleman? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  According  to  the  method  of  buying  cattle  to  day,  the 
value  of  a  steer  is  arrived  at  by  figuring  what  the  beef  contained  in 
that  steer  is  worth,  together  with  the  by-products. 

Representative  COONEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  If  there  is  a  by-product  contained  in  the  steer  which  is 
of  value  in  bringing  a  high  price  on  the  market,  it  increases  the  price 
which  the  packer  can  pay  for  the  steer  just  that  much;  but  if  you 
reduce  the  value  of  that  by-product  $1  a  head,  it  simply  cuts  off  that 
much  money  from  the  price  of  your  steer. 

Representative  COONEY.  This  is  what  I  want  to  get  at,  Mr.  Lavery. 
You  state  that  a  slaughtered  steer  will  contain  about  50  pounds  of  this 
fat,  out  of  which  you  make  oleo  oil? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

•  Representative  COONEY.  And  that  that  fat  is  worth  4  cents  per  pound 
more  than  it  would  be  if  it  were  made  into  lard? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  said  tallow,  not  lard. 

Representative  COONEY.  Into  tallow,  I  mean ;  and  that  4  cents,  you 
say,  goes  to  the  stockman? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  COONEY.  Now  I  will  ask  you  if  you  treat  the  stock- 
man, and  if  the  stockman  is  treated  in  the  market,  upon  the  same  basis 
of  the  value  of  his  steer  on  all  other  parts  of  the  steer  ? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  COONEY.  And  if  he  is  not,  why  is  he  not! 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Well,  he  certainly  is.  He  is  given  credit  for  all  the 
by-products  in  the  purchase  price  of  that  steer. 


806  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Representative  COONEY.  He  is  given  all  of  the  value  of  all  parts  of 
his  steer,  then? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  purchase  price. 

Eepresentative  WILLIAMS.  You  mean  that  renders  him  able  to  offer 
that  much  more? 

Mr.  LA  VERY.  That  is  exactly  it. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the  actual 
price  arrived  at  in  selling  a  steer,  like  anything  else,  is  a  matter  of 
bartering  and  huckstering  in  the  market? 

Mr.  LA  VERY.  That  is  the  idea;  yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  COONEY.  That  is  a  very  different  thing.  I  want  to 
know  who  gets  this  $2  which  Mr.  Lavery  is  talking  about.  He  says  it 
is  the  stockman  who  gets  it.  It  could  not  be  a  matter  of  huckstering 
and  bartering,  then,  it'  the  farmer  gets  it. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  I  would  like  to  continue  the  questions 
which  have  been  asked  you.  You  claim  that  the  manufacture  of  this 
product  makes  $2  of  difference  per  head  of  cattle? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  On  what  ground  do  you  base  your  claims! 
What  is  the  number  of  cattle  slaughtered,  according  to  the  Govern- 
ment reports  or  estimates  which  you  have? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  In  the  United  States? 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LA  VERY.  I  have  not  those  figures  at  hand. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  1  think  it  is  about  5,000,000  head,  is  it 
not?  According  to  the  Agricultural  Department  report,  it  is  4,654,000. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  only  have  the  figures  for  the  Kansas  City  markets. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  According  to  the  reports,  there  were 
24,491,709  pounds  of  this  oleo  oil  consumed. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir ;  here  in  this  country.   . 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  In  manufacture! 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  That  would  amount  to  less  than  5  pounds 
to  each  head  of  cattle,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Well,  you  understand  that,  as  I  stated  a  while  ago 

Representative  HAUGEN.  I  am  referring  now  to  whatever  this  bill 
refers  to.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  oleomargarine  shipped  abroad. 
This  bill  does  not  affect  the  exports;  it  refers  to  what  is  consumed  here 
at  home,  or  what  is  colored.  Now,  this  would  amount  to  less  than  5 
pounds  to  a  head,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  I  have  not  figured  that  out. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  Well,  it  is  necessary,  in  view  of  the  state- 
ments and  assertions  that  you  have  made,  to  figure  it  out  in  dollars 
and  cents,  and  in  pounds. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  Now,  then,  if  there  are  24,000,000  pounds 
used  or  consumed,  and  5,000,000  head  of  cattle  slaughtered,  that  is  less 
than  5  pounds  to  each  head  of  cattle  killed? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Y^es,  sir. 

Eepresentative  HAUGEN.  You  stated  a  while  ago  that  there  was  a 
difference  of  4  cents  a  pound  between  the  prices  paid  for  this  fat  for 
the  purposes  of  tallow  and  oleo  oil.  Now,  then,  5  pounds  of  fat  at 
4  cents  per  pound  is  20  cents,  or  less  than  20  cents  lor  each  head  of 
cattle  killed,  according  to  your  own  statement,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Well,  taking  only  the  amount  of  oleo  oil  consumed  in 
this  country,  it  would  probably  be  that  much  less  than  $2.  I  consider 
that  this  bill  would  affect  more  than  our  own  country. 

(*224) 


OLEOMABGABINE, 


807 


Representative  HAIJGEN.  We  will  come  to  that  later,  but  I  wish  to 
make  this  point  clear. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  It  would  be  much  less  than  $2  on  that  basis. 

Representative  HAUGKN.  Are  my  statements  correct,  then? 

Mr.  LA  VERY,  it  is  simply  a  question  of  figures.  1  have  not  figured 
it  out. 

Representative  HAUGKN.  It  is  necessary  to  use  figures  to  arrive  at 
the  result. 

Mr.  LAVKRY.  That  is  simply  a  question  of  figures. 

Representative  STOKKS.  Is  it  possible,  Mr.  Lavery,  for  you  to  have 
one  set  of  prices  for  home  consumption,  and  another  set  of  export 
prices?  Is  that  possible  under  any  conditions  in  our  commercial 
arrangements  1 

Mr.  LAVKRY.  Do  you  refer  to  oleo  oil? 

Representative  STOKES.   I  refer  to  any  commodity  that  is  exported. 

Mr.  LAVKRY.  No,  sir;  the  prices  are  usually  the  same. 

Representative  STOKES.  The  same? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes;  sir. 

K'epresentativc  STOKKS.   Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  LAVKRY.  We  base  our  market  price  of  oleo  oil,  for  both  foreigD 
and  domestic  use,  on  exactly  the  same  conditions. 

Representative  HAUOKN.  Now,  you  state  that  this  bill  will  affect 
the  price  of  the  oil  which  you  export.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question  : 
Did  it  affect  the  x>rice  of  oleomargarine  when  the  present  law,  provid- 
ing for  the  2  cent  tax,  was  enacted?  I  believe  you  stated  a  moment 
ago  that  the  trade  had  increased. 

Mr.  LAVKRY.  Why,  no,  sir.  While  I  think  the  2-cents  per  pound 
tax  is  unjust,  it  is  within  reason;  and  we  can  pay  that  tax  and  still  do 
business. 

Representative  HAUGKN.  You  claim  that  the  10-cent  tax  would 
practically  kill  your  industry? 

Mr.  LAVKRY.  I  certainly  do;  yes,  sir. 

Representative  liAUGEN.  What  is  oleomargarine  worth  to-day, 
uncolored?  What  is  the  average,  price  for  the  year? 

Mr.  LAVKRY.  The  average  price  to  day  is,  say,  11  to  14  cents,  whole- 
sale. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  The  uncolored  oleomargarine? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  The  uncolored  oleomargarine;  yes,  sir.  There  is  110 
difference  between  the  cost  of  the  colored  and  the  uncolored  product. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  What  is  the  average  price  of  butter  the 
year  round? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  The  Elgin  market  this  week  is,  I  think,  18  or  19  cents— 
possibly  10. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  You  sell  the  uncolored  oleomargarine  now 
for  how  much,  you  say? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  make  no  difference  in  the  price  of  colored  and 
uncolored  oleomargarine. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  It  is  about  11  cents,  you  say? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  That  is  the  wholesale,  price;  yes,  sir.  The  price  ranges 
from  11  to  14  cents.  You  understand  that  we,  make  two  or  three  differ- 
ent grades  of  oleomargarine. 

Representative  HAIH;KN.  At  this  time  of  the  year  butter  is  much 
lower  than  at  other  seasons,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  The  price  of  butter,  on  an  average,  is  22  to 
24 cents,  is  it  not? 

(•226) 


808  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Representative  WILLIAMS.  Do  you  mean  retail  or  wholesale  ? 

Representative  HAUGEN.  I  mean  wholesale. 

Mr.  LA  VERY.  I  think  that  is  a  fair  average.  It  averaged  higher  than 
that  last  year,  however. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  Say  that  a  fair  average  price  for  butter,  at 
wholesale,  is  24  cents  a  pound,  and  that  of  your  product  is  11  cents. 
You  claim  that  your  product  is  worth  just  as  much  and  will  sell  for 
just  as  much  as  butter,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  You  must  understand  that  there  are  seasons  when  the 
Elgin  market  has  been  much  lower  than  that.  If  this  bill  were  passed, 
half  of  the  time  the  cost  of  oleomargarine  would  be  higher  than  the 
Elgin  market  price  of  butter.  Based  on  the  present  figures  oleomar- 
garine would  cost  more  to  produce  than  Elgin  butter. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  At  the  present  market  price  you  could  not 
pay  the  10  cents  per  pound? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  But  on  an  average,  if  the  average  price  of 
butter  is  22  cents,  then  you  could  pay  the  10  cents,  as  I  understand 
oleomargarine  can  be  manufactured  for  about  8  cents  per  pound?  I 
believe  that  is  the  testimony  before  this  committee. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir;  it  can  not;  that  is  too  low. 

Representative  HAUGEN.  But  it  sells  at  10  or  11  cents.  Is  it  not  a 
fact  that  it  is  sold  for  less  than  10  cents? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir ;  it  is  not. 

Representative  WRIGHT.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question  in  con- 
nection with  Mr.  Haugen's  questions.  From  your  answers  to  his  ques- 
tion, Mr.  Lavery,  I  infer  that  the  wholesale  price  of  oleomargarine 
is  about  11  cents,  and  the  wholesale  price  of  butter  about  22  cents. 

Mr.  LAVERY.  The  Elgin  market  to-day  is  about  18  or  19  cents.  I 
would  not  say  positively  on  that  point,  one  way  or  the  other. 

Representative  WRIGHT.  I  wanted  to  ask,  then,  if  it  is  true  that 
people  want  oleomargarine,  whether  you  could  not  still  add  the  10 
cents  to  it  and  sell  it  on  the  same  basis  as  butter? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir;  they  would  not  buy  it  on  the  same  basis  as 
butter.  They  buy  oleomargarine  because  it  is  a  wholesome  product, 
and  can  be  bought  slightly  cheaper  than  butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  When  you  speak  of  the  cost  being  11  or  14 
cents,  does  that  include  the  2-cent  tax,  or  not? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  That  includes  the  tax;  yes,  sir.  It  includes  the  2-cent 
tax  only. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

Representative  NEVILLE.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  one 
farther  question.  If,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  this  tax  is  established  at  10 
cents  per  pound,  and  the  people  actually  want  to  consume  oleomar- 
garine, want  to  eat  it,  could  they  not  afford  then  to  buy  it  direct  them- 
selves and  color  it,  and  still  get  it  much  cheaper  than  they  get  butter, 
and  would  they  not  do  it? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir;  because  they  have  not  the  facilities  for  color 
ing  it,  for  handling  the  coloring  in  the  way  it  should  be  handled;  and 
they  would  not  go  to  that  trouble. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Now,  then,  by  coloring  it,  you  add  at  least 
from  8  to  10  cents  per  pound  in  value  to  it,  do  you? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Well,  I  do  not  figure  that  way;  no,  sir. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  How  much  do  you  figure  that  you  add  to 
its  value  by  coloring  it! 

Mr.  LAVERY.  You  might  say  the  whole  value  of  the  product  is  taken 
away  from  it  if  you  take  the  color  out. 


OLEOMABGAEINE.  809 

.Representative  NEVILLE.  And  then,  by  putting  the  coloring  matter 


m 

Mr.  LA  VERY.  Our  experience  is  that  uncolored  oleomargarine  will 
not  sell. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Then,  the  putting  of  the  color  into  it  is 
what  gives  it  its  value? 

Mr.  LA  VERY.  Yes,  sir.  If  people  had  been  educated  to  use  uncolored 
oleomargarine,  they  would  not  expect  it  any  other  way,  but  they  have 
not;  they  have  always  bought  it  colored. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now,  what  does  it  cost  to  make  it  without 
the  coloring  in  it? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  The  manufacture  costs  about  a  cent  under  the  whole- 
sale price. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  It  would  then  cqst  about  10  cents? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  That  is  the  wholesale  price? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Eepresentative  NEVILLE.  Now,  the  retail  price,  you  say,  is  about  18 
cents? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir;  I  said  11  to  14. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  OF  DE.  H.  W.  WILEY,  CHIEF  CHEMIST, 
UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  simply  wish  to  say  that  I  have  prepared  here  a  little 
statement  to  place  in  my  evidence  of  yesterday,  in  connection  with  my 
statement  in  regard  to  stearin  in  oleomargarine.  It  appears  in  the 
report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Eevenue  that  there  is  only  0.007 
of  one  per  cent  in  oleomargarine.  On  looking  the  matter  up  I  find  that 
he  means  that  that  much  stearin  has  been  added  in  the  process  of 
manufacture.  He  does  not  refer  to  the  stearin  which  is  present  in  the 
neutral  lard,  the  oleo  oil,  and  the  cotton-seed  oil.  They  all  contain 
stearin.  My  statement  which  I  made  to  the  committee  is  strictly  cor- 
rect— that  the  total  amount  is  from  15  to  20  per  cent.  I  would  like  to 
submit  this  and  have  it  incorporated  in  my  evidence,  as  I  proposed 
yesterday. 

That  is  all  I  have  to  say. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  Dr.  Wiley,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  ques- 
tion. Will  you  please  state  to  the  committee  what  degree  of  heat  will 
destroy  the  tuberculosis  germ,  in  the  opinion  of  chemists? 

Dr.  WILEY.  It  takes  a  temperature  of  from  150°  to  160°  F.  to  surely 
destroy  the  pathogenic  germ  of  consumption. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  Have  you  any  information  as  to  what  degree 
of  temperature  is  reached  in  the  production  of  oleomargarine,  or  the 
preparation  of  its  elements? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  can  state  in  regard  to  neutral  lard,  because  I  have 
often  seen  that  made.  I  think  the  temperature  there  is  probably  high 
enough  to  kill  the  germ.  I  do  not  know  what  temperature  is  used  in 
preparing  oleo  oil.  I  am  not  acquainted  with  that. 

Eepresentative  STOKES.  One  other  question.  Is  it  not  a  fact,  pretty 
well  demonstrated  through  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  that  the 
dairy  herds  of  the  country  are  largely  impregnated  with  tuberculosis 
germs? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  think  that  is  well  recognized  every  where— that  tuber- 
culosls  is  very  prevalent  among  our  dairy  cows. 


810  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Representative  STOKES.  Another  question.  Is  it  equally  so  among 
the  beef  herds  ? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  could  not  say  in  regard  to  that.     I  do  not  think  it  is. 

Representative  STOKES.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  beef  herds,  however, 
before  slaughtering:,  are  subjected  to  an  inspection  by  the  Government 
through  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Not  being  connected  with  that  Bureau,  I  could  not  say 
positively. 

Representative  STOKES.  That  is  a  fact  which  has  been  developed 
here. 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  they  are  all  inspected. 

Representative  STOKES.  Another  question :  Do  you  know  whether  or 
not  they  are  inspected  after  slaughtering? 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  know  that  pork  is  inspected  for  trichina.  I  think  beef 
cattle  are  inspected  also  after  slaughtering. 

Representative  STOKES.  They  are  inspected  also? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes;  that  is  my  impression. 

Representative  STOKES.  Then  in  the  event  that  an  animal  here  and 
there  should  escape  these  tests,  and  should  still  contain  tuberculosis 
germs,  is  it  not  probable  that  that  danger  would  be  eliminated  in  the 
process  of  manufacturing  oleomargarine,  which  is  subjected  to  the  high 
temperature  you  have  mentioned? 

Dr.  WILEY.  The  temperature  required  in  rendering  the  fat  and  pre- 
paring the  oil  would  be  high  enough  to  kill  most  of  those  germs,  I 
should  think. 

Representative  STOKES.  One  other  question:  Is  it  possible,  in  the 
manufacture  of  butter  from  the  cow,  in  the  creameries,  to  eliminate 
those  germs  if  the  germs  exist  in  the  herd? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Not  by  the  application  of  heat,  because  that  would  ruin 
the  physical  properties  of  butter. 

Representative  STOKES.  Is  there  any  other  process  within  your 
knowledge? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Nothing  except  the  addition  of  preservatives,  which  is 
equally  objectionable. 

Representative  COONEY.  I  want  to  ask  you  this  question,  Dr.  Wiley: 
If  the  answers  given  by  you  to  Mr.  Stokes's  questions  are  correct,  would 
it  not  follow'that  it  is  much  safer  and  healthier  for  a  person  to  confine 
himself  strictly  to  eating  oleomargarine  and  let  creamery  butter  entirely 
alone;  does  that  not  necessarily  follow  from  the  questions  and  answers? 

Dr.  WILEY.  If  you  are  to  avoid  danger  from  infection  of  tubercu- 
losis, I  think  that  would  be  true. 

Representative  NEVILLE.  Professor,  would  not  that  apply  to  every 
other  food  product  in  just  the  same  way? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes,  sir.  There  is  no  food  product  which  does  not  at 
some  time  carry  dangerous  germs.  If  we  applied  that  rule  we  would 
exclude  all  food. 

Representative  COONEY.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  it  would  be  much 
better  to  direct  the  attention  of  this  bill  to  creamery  butter  than  to 
eleomargarine? 

Dr.  WILEY.  As  far  as  tuberculosis  is  concerned,  undoubtedly. 

Representative  BAILEY.  Dr.  Wiley,  let  me  ask  you  this  question :  Do 
you  consider  oleomargarine  a  wholesome  article  of  food. 

Dr.  WILEY.  I  do. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Lavery  to  what 
temperature  he  heats  the  milk  and  cream  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
his  butterine?  1  believe  you  stated,  Mr.  Lavery,  that  you  used  milk 
and  cream? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  811 

Mr.  LAVERY.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  sterilize  it? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  We  do  not  sterilize  it;  no,  sir.  We  handle  our  milk 
and  cream  exactly  as  a  creamery  would  for  making  butter.  In  fact,  we 
have  a  graduate  of  the  Madison  (Wis.)  Dairy  School  looking  after  our 
milk  rooms;  and  of  course  we  set  that  milk  at  night  to  ripen  for  the 
next  day's  use.  It  all  depends  on  the  condition  of  the  weather  as  to 
how  warm  that  milk  is  when  it  is  set — from  (>5°  to  75°  I  would  say. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  can  not  heat  it  up  to  140°  or  150°, 
as  Dr.  Wiley  says  cream  or  milk  must  be  heated  in  order  to  destroy 
these  germs? 

Mr.  LAVERY.  No,  sir;  we  can  not.  If  we  should  do  that  we  would 
cook  it,  and  spoil  it. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  will  say,  just  here,  to  settle  this  question  of  the  tem- 
perature, that  our  oleo  oil  is  heated  up  to  150°  or  100°  F.  In  making 
oleo  oil,  we  heat  it  to  150°. 

I  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Wiley  a  question  just  there.  Dr.  Wiley  has 
made  the  statement  here  that  butterine  contains  15  to  20  per  cent 
stearin.  I  would  like  to  have  him  state  to  the  committee  that  that 
stearin  in  itself  is  perfectly  wholesome  and  healthy,  because  all  oils 
contain  stearin.  Stearin  is  simply  the  heavy  body  in  all  oils.  I  think, 
perhaps,  the  commission  have  a  wrong  impression  of  the  article  of 
stearin;  and  if  Dr.  Wiley  will  kindly  explain  to  them  just  what 
stearin  is  in  oil,  I  think  it  will  leave  a  better  impression. 

Dr.  WILEY.  It  is  fully  explained  in  this  document,  which  I  will  put 
in  my  evidence. 

Mr.  MILLER.  It  is? 

Dr.  WILEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Then  that  is  all  right. 

Mr.  Lavery  submitted  the  following  petition: 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  GENTLEMEN  OP  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE  :  We,  the 
undersigned  merchants  of  Kansas  City,  herewith  wish  to  affirm  that  we  are  pro- 
vided with  a  Federal  retail  license  for  the  sale  of  oleomargarine.  We  understand 
fully  all  the  laws  regulating  the  sale  of  this  product,  and  do  comply  with  them  in 
every  particular. 

At  no  time  have  we  sold  oleomargarine  for  butter  or  allowed  packages  of  same  to 
leave  our  respective  places  of  business  without  being  stamped  in  accordance  with 
the  internal-revenue  regulations. 

In  our  opinion,  the  passage  of  House  of  Representatives  bill  No.  3717,  known  as 
the  Grout  bill,  would  be  an  injustice  to  us,  as  it  would  take  away  our  right  to  buy 
and  sell  a  legitimate  article  of  commerce,  and  one  which  the  demands  of  our  trade 
justify  us  in  handling. 

It  would  work  a  hardship  on  hundreds  of  Kansas  City  laboring  men  and  their 
families  who  are  regular  purchasers  of  oleomargarine. 

We  therefore  respectfully  request  that  you  consider  our  protests  when  passing 
upon  the  proposed  measure. 

Reinhardt  Bros.,  M.  Quinn,  M.  Ross,  A.  Denebeim,  A.  L.  Shanklin,C.  S.  Brig- 
ham,  A.  R.  Moss,  J.  H.  Duncan,  E.  Klein,  Wm.  Burnett,  Elstein  Bros., 
Rice  &  Gibson,  R.,  E.  E.  Shafer,  H.  F.  Schaible,  H.  Roberts'  Sons,  C.  E. 
Robinson,  M.  Myers,  M.  Klein,  Jones  Dry  Goods  Co.,  Silverman  Bros., 
A.  M.  Churchtler,  R.  H.  Williams,  H.  Stelling,  Jos.  Smart,  David  Smart, 
D.  A.  White,  J.  D.  Quinn,  W.  Barrett,  C.  P.  Jehn,  Matthews  Coopera- 
tive Grocery  Co.,  by  M.  W.  Matthews,  Manager.,  A.  H.  Kampmuir,  Walt 
H.  Mailand,  E.  H.  Rodekopf,  L.  T.  Bush  &  Co.,  Blum's  Parlor  Market, 
Aaron  P.  Duncan,  Theo.  Tegren,  Samuel  Stewart,  L.  H.  Henry,  C.  A. 
Pettit,  N.  Hoogland,  Otto  Anderson,  J.  L.  Jones,  B.  M.  White,  L.  G.  Eike, 
Geo.  J.  Clausen,  James  Maguire,  Hartford  Bros.  Grocery  Co.,  N.  R. 
Poley,  F.  F.  Brandt  &  Co.,  L.  T.  Franks,  McHale  &  Co.,  A.  Ofner,  A.  H. 
Schuyler,W.  J.  Doust,W.  A.  Griswold,  Jones  &  Irvin,  M.  H.  Brotherson, 
L.  Benson,  Tucker  &  Company,  Headley  &  Moore,  W.  A.  Yearnshaw, 
C.W.  Green,  S.  D.  Hustead,  M.  J.  Marley,  .J.  C.Tennier,  Lilies  &  Clark, 
Frank  Forsberg,  L.  H.  Tennier,  F.  J.  Koch,  J.  C.  Fisher,  Peter  Goos 

(The  committee  thereupon,  at  12.15  o'clock  p.  m.,  adjourned.) 


812 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


Oleomargarine 


Premium 


OLEOMARGARINE. 


813 


OLEOMARGARINE 


Swiit's  Jersey 


OLEOMARGARINE 


Lincoln 


SUMMARY  OF  EVIDENCE  INTRODUCED  IN  SUPPORT  OP 
H.  R.  3717  (THE  GROUT  BILL)  BEFORE  THE 
SENATE  COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICUL- 
TURE AND  FORESTRY. 


COMPILED   BY 


CHARLES    Y.    KTSTIGKBT, 

Secretary  National  Dairy  Union, 

AT  THE    REQUEST   OF   THE   COMMITTEE. 


815 


816 


SUMMARY  AND  REVIEW  OF  EVIDENCE. 


Appearing  in  behalf  of  the  Grout  bill  were: 

Hon.  James  Wilson,  Secretary  of  Agriculture. 

Hon.  S.  C.  Bassett,  president  Nebraska  State  Board  of  Agriculture. 

Hon.  John  Hamilton,  secretary  department  of  agriculture  of  Pennsylvania. 

Hon.  G.  L.  Flanders,  assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture,  New  York. 

Hon.  F.  J.  H.  Kracke,  assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture  of  New  York. 

Hon.  H.  C.  Adams,  food  commissioner  of  Wisconsin. 

Hon.  J.  C.  Blackburn,  food  commissioner  of  Ohio. 

Hon.  W.  W.  Grout,  of  Vermont. 

Hon.  W.  D.  Hoard,  president  National  Dairy  Union. 

Hon.  James  A.  Tawney,  of  Minnesota. 

Chas.  Y.  Knight,  secretary  National  Dairy  Union. 

Luther  S.  Kaufman,  attorney  for  Pennsylvania  Pure  Butter  Protective  Association. 

John  H.  Habacker,  butter  merchant,  Philadelphia. 

Isaac  W.  Cleaver,  retail  merchant,  Philadelphia. 

Joseph  C.  Sharpless,  farmer,  Westchester,  Pa. 

E.  D.  Edson,  butter  merchant,  Philadelphia. 

W.  F.  Drennen,  butter  merchant,  Philadelphia. 

Thomas  Sharpless,  farmer,  Chester  County,  Pa. 

Isaac  W.  Davis,  president  Produce  Exchange,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Samuel  Jamison,  wholesale  butter  dealer,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

C.  H.  Royce,  from  Norton's  farm,  New  York. 

J.  J.  Dillon,  editor  Rural  New  Yorker. 

E.  B.  Norris,  master  of  New  York  State  Grange,  and  representing  National  Grange. 

W.  A.  Eogers,  from  Watertowji,  N.  Y.,  Produce  Exchange. 

Summerfield  B.  Medairy,  president  Baltimore  Pure  Butter  Protective  Association. 

James  Hewes,  president  Baltimore  Produce  Exchange. 

Food  commissioners  not  present,  but  filing  letters  of  approval  of  the  Grout  bill  were — 

Hon.  Elliott  O.  Grosvenor,  food  commissioner  of  Michigan. 

Hon.  B.  P.  Norton,  food  commissioner  of  Iowa. 

Hon.  J.  B.  Noble,  food  commissioner  of  Connecticut. 


LAWS  OF  THE   STATES. 

The  strongest  evidence  we  offer  Congress  of  our  claim  of  protection 
against  a  counterfeit  article  is  the  fact  that  thirty -two  States,  with 
over  60,000,000  of  the  74,000,000  population,  have  condemned  the 
article  we  seek  to  tax  10  cents  per  pound  through  its  absolute  exclu- 
sion from  commerce  in  their  borders,  so  far  as  State  laws  can  do  so. 

The  map  upon  the  opposite  page  appears  on  page  557  of  the  com- 
mittee testimony,  showing  the  States  which  have  passed  these  laws 
absolutely  forbidding  the  sale  under  any  condition  of  oleomargarine 
colored  in  semblance  of  butter,  and  Montana  has  levied  a  tax  of  10 
rents  per  pound  upon  such  article. 

A  synopsis  of  these  laws,  prepared  by  the  Agricultural  Department 
of  the  Government,  will  be  found  in  the  testimony  before  the  House 
Committee  on  Agriculture,  beginning  at  page  593. 

S.  Rep.  2043 52  817 


818  OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  constitutionality  of  such  laws,  forbidding  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  oleomargarine  made  in  semblance  of  butter,  has  been  upheld  in 
every  supreme  court  the  matter  has  ever  been  brought  before,  includ- 
ing Massachusetts,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Ma^land,  Ohio,  Missouri, 
and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  Plumley  v. 
Commonwealth,  handed  down  December  10,  1894,  and  reported  in 
United  States,  155.  The  State  cases  are:  New  York,  People  v.  Aren- 
burg,  105  N.  Y.,  123,  129,  130;  supreme  court  of  Maryland,  McAllis- 
ter v.  State,  72  Maryland,  390;  supreme  court  of  Mainland,  Pierce  v. 
State,  63  Maryland,  596;  supreme  court  of  New  Jersey,  Waterbury 
v.  Newton,  21  Vroom  (50  N.  J.  Law),  534-537;  supreme  court  of  Mis- 
souri, decision  handed  down  in  1897,  and  Ohio  case  in  April,  1900. 

Yet  despite  the  strong  support  these  laws  receive  in  the  upper  courts, 
during  the  fiscal  year  ended  July  1, 1899,  the  Treasury  Department  fig- 
ures show  that  62,825,000  of  the  83,000,000  pounds  of  colored  oleomar- 
garine made  were  sold  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  these  States  (House 
evidence,  p.  20),  and  that  of  the  9,068  retail  dealers  doing  business  in 
the  United  States  for  the  year  ending  July  1  last,  7,073  were  violating 
the  various  anticolor  laws  of  the  United  States  and  only  1,995  were 
doing  business  as  permitted  by  the  laws.  Of  the  107,000,000  pounds  of 
oleomargarine  produced  in  the  United  States  for  the  year  ending  July 
1,  1900,  66,820,196  pounds  were  produced  in  States  which  prohibit 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine,  and  40,240,859 
pounds  were  produced  in  those  States  which  permit  such  production. 
(Senate  evidence,  p.  463.) 

FRAUD  AND  LAWLESSNESS. 

The  most  important  testimony  in  connection  with  the  measure  now 
before  the  committee,  however,  we  believe  to  be  that  which  goes  to 
show  that  the  same  condition  exists  to-day  that  existed  when  the  dairy- 
men came  before  Congress  in  1886  and  asked  for  national  legislation 
to  stop  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter,  securing  what  at  the  time 
was  thought  to  be  permanent  relief. 

The  original  basis  of  a  demand  for  national  legislation  was  that  oleo- 
margarine was  being  sold  to  the  public  as  butter,  to  the  prejudice  of 
the  public  and  the  financial  loss  of  those  who  produce  and  deal  in  the 
pure  article  of  butter.  We  believe  that  the  evidence  which  we  have 
presented  before  this  committee,  although  only  an  infinitesimal  part  of 
what  could  easily  have  been  adduced,  has  proven  that  the  same  condi- 
tions exist  to-day. 

In  reviewing  this  evidence,  we  shall  begin  with  the  city  of  Chicago, 
because  it  is  at  this  point,  as  shown  in  the  statement  of  the  writer,  on 
page  463,  2,691  of  the  9,068  retail  dealers  in  oleomargarine  of  this 
country  were  doing  business  at  the  end  of  the  last  fiscal  year,  June  30, 
1900,  and  the  Government  reports  show  that  in  that  State  was  sold 
almost  25  per  cent  of  all  oleomargarine  produced  in  the  United  States 
the  year  previous.  It  is  in  the  city  of  Chicago  that  46,500,000  of  the 
107,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  made  in  the  United  States  were 
manufactured  last  year.  It  is  here  where  two  leading  firms  make  from 
25  to  33  per  cent  of  all  the  oleomargarine  produced  in  this  country. 

On  page  461  will  be  found  the  following  as  the  opening  of  my  state- 
ment before  your  honorable  body : 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  want  to  open  this  matter  by  reading  a  statement 
which  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  which  I  received  from  a  retail  grocer's  clerk  in  the  city  of 


OLEOMARGARINE.  819 

Chicago  some  time  last  year.  I  am  familiar  with  the  gentleman's  name,  but  I  have 
not  put  it  hi  here.  I  will  vouch,  however,  for  the  condition,  and  prove  it  to  you, 
.but  I  merely  read  it  as  an  introduction: 

"During  the  past  twenty-two  years  I  think  I  have  worked  in  nearly  every  first- 
class  grocery  in  Chicago,  and  I  can  truthfully  say  that  eight  out  of  every  ten  have 
been  and  are  still  selling  butterine  for  pure  butter.  I  recently  was  employed  in  one 
of  the  largest  groceries  and  markets  on  one  of  the  most  prominent  streets  of  the  city. 
During  the  time  I  was  employed  there  we  never  sold  one  pound  of  butter,  for  we 
never  had  it  in  the  house  to  sell.  We  clerks  would  talk  among  ourselves  about  it, 
and  would  often  compare  notes  with  other  clerks,  and  to  satisfy  myself  I  made  quite 
a  canvass  of  all  the  stores  in  the  mile  and  found  only  one  that  did  not  impose  on  its 
trade." 

Gentlemen,  from  experience  I  can  vouch  for  the  accuracy  of  that  statement,  and  I 
want  to  give  you  a  little  experience  and  I  propose  to  demonstrate  it  right  here. 

And  on  page  469  the  following,  in  a  letter  written  me  by  J.  H.  Mon- 
rad,  assistant  food  commissioner  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  will  further 
substantiate  what  this  clerk  says: 

DEAR  SIR:  In  reply  to  your  inquiry,  I  beg  to  say  that  it  is  my  impression  that 
about  75  per  cent  of  all  the  oleomargarine  retailed  hi  Chicago  is  sold  as  butter. 

After  having  heard  these  statements  before  your  committee,  certain 
oleomargarine  makers  questioned  their  accuracy  in  the  public  prints 
of  Chicago,  whereas  the  matter  was  taken  before  the  Chicago  Butter 
and  Egg  Board,  an  organization  of  the  wholesale  butter  and  egg  inter- 
ests of  Chicago,  and  the  following  conclusions  mailed  the  writer,  which 
appear  in  full  on  pages  554  and  555  of  the  printed  report: 

CHICAGO  BUTTER  AND  EGG  BOARD, 

Chicago,  January  12,  1901. 

At  the  regular  meeting  of  the  Chicago  Butter  and  Egg  Board,  held  January  12, 
1901,  the  following  statement  was  presented  by  George  W.  Linn,  president  of  the 
Illinois  Dairy  Union,  and  generally  discussed  by  the  members  of  the  board,  and  by 
a  unanimous  vote  it  was  declared  to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  individual  members,  as 
nearly  every  member  has  been  familiar  with  the  unfair  and  unlawful  methods  pur- 
sued by  the  dealers  in  oleomargarine  for  years. 

JOHN  W.  Low,  President. 
CHARLES  E.  McNsiLL,  Secretary. 

The  statement  alluded  to  follows,  and  was  signed  by  eighteen  leading 
butter  firms  of  Chicago: 

CHICAGO,  January  12,  1901. 

Whereas  we  are  informed  by  newspaper  reports  and  other  sources  that  the 
manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  are  inclined  to  deny  the  assertion  of  the  officers  of 
the  National  Dairy  Union  that  the  retail  trade  sell  oleomargarine  almost  exclusively 
as  butter;  and 

"Whereas  from  our  long  experience  in  competition  with  this  class  of  goods  we  have 
repeatedly  and  continually  been  brought  face  to  face  with  the  fact  that  fully  75  per 
cent,  and  possibly  as  high  as  95  per  cent,  goes  to  the  consumer  as  pure  butter,  we, 
as  an  organization  and  as  individuals,  desire  to  go  on  record  as  corroborating  the 
statement  made  in  that  particular  by  the  officers  of  the  National  Dairy  Union. 

The  following  will  be  found  also  on  page  555,  from  the  Daily  Trade 
Bulletin,  the  official  price  current  of  the  Chicago  market,  for  January 
12,  1901: 

It  is  generally  admitted  by  dealers  that  the  demoralized  condition  of  the  butter 
market  at  present  is  due  to  the  use  of  butterine.  Dealers  estimated  that  at  least  75 
per  cent  of  the  retailers  are  selling  butterine. 

Such  has  been  the  condition  in  Chicago  for  years.  State  laws  had 
proved  wholly  inadequate,  but  during  the  summer  of  1899  your  orator, 
as  secretary  of  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union,  concluded  to  make  an  extreme 
effort  to  stop  some  of  this  fraud,  and  employed  Mr.  Hugh  V.  Murray 


820  OLEOMARGA  RINE. 

as  counsel.  Under  the  instructions  of  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  Mr. 
Murray  sent  the  following  letter  to  every  licensed  olemargarine  dealer 
in  the  city  of  Chicago,  which,  with  further  details,  appears  on  page  465 
Senate  testimony: 

[Office  of  H.  V.  Murray,  attorney  at  law.] 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  July  29,  1899. 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  have  been  employed  by  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  to  prosecute  any 
cases  of  violation  of  the  dairy  laws  of  this  State  which  may  result  from  the  arrest  of 
any  dealer  selling  oleomargarine  when  butter  is  called  for.  As  you  probably  know, 
a  commission,  consisting  of  a  food  commissioner  and  eight  assistants  and  inspectors, 
was  provided  for  by  the  late  legislature,  whose  duty  it  is  to  enforce  these  laws.  The 
commissioner  has  been  appointed,  and  until  he  has  appointed  his  assistants  and  gotten 
to  work  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union's  inspectors  will  look  after  the  protection  of  con- 
sumers of  butter  and  see  that  those  who  sell  them  oleomargarine  for  butter  are  pros- 
ecuted under  the  State  laws,  and  also  reported  to  the  Internal  Eevenue  Department 
as  violators  of  the  internal-revenue  laws.  I  herewith  inclose  extracts  from  three 
State  laws.  These  laws  are  not  tied  up  in  the  courts,  and  the  oleomargarine  manu- 
facturers will  not  place  themselves  in  the  light  of  protecting  those  who  sell  oleomar- 
garine for  butter,  although  they  may  consistently  fight  the  law  forbidding  coloring, 
which  has  not  yet  been  passed  upon  by  the  supreme  court. 

If  you  sell  oleomargarine  this  year  rest  assured  that  the  State  food  commissioner 
and  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  will  see  that  you  are  not  permitted  to  sell  it  as  butter. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

HUGH  V.  MURRAY, 
Attorney  for  Illinois  Dairy  Union. 

This  letter  should  be  read  carefully.  It  was  the  intention  of  the 
writer  to  convey  clearly  to  the  retailer  two  things: 

First.  That  the  prosecutions  would  be  for  the  sale  of  oleomargarine 
as  butter,  and  not  for  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine  col- 
ored in  semblance  of  butter,  as  prohibited  by  a  law  passed  two  years 
previous,  but  at  that  time  tied  up  in  the  courts. 

Second.  That  the  prosecutions  would  be  begun  under  the  laws  which 
were  not  tied  up  in  the  courts,  thereby  giving  the  manufacturers  no 
excuse  for  defending  such  prosecutions  without  coming  out  in  the  open 
light  and  defending  fraud. 

These  letters  created  consternation  in  the  ranks  of  the  dealers.  The 
sale  of  pure  butter  increased  immensely,  and  the  sale  of  oleomargarine 
decreased  correspondingly.  The  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  were 
in  desperate  straits  to  save  their  business,  and  on  August  2  the  follow- 
ing letter,  printed  on  page  465,  the  original  of  which  was  displayed 
before  this  committee,  was  mailed  by  William  J.  Moxley,  claiming  to 
be  the  largest  maker  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United  States: 

[William  J.  Moxley,  manufacturer  of  flue  butterine,  63  and  66  West  Monroe  street.] 

CHICAGO,  August  2,  1899. 


-,  City. 


DEAR  SIR:  Our  attention  has  been  called  to  two  circulars  which  have  been  mailed 
to  you — one  signed  by  Hugh  V.  Murray,  an  attorney,  and  the  other  by  Charles  Y. 
Knight,  editor  in  chief  of  a  periodical  without  subscribers  named  the  Chicago  Dairy 
Produce.  The  circular  bearing  Mr.  Knight's  name  has  at  its  head  an  imposing  lot 
of  names,  gentlemen  whose  aim  it  is  to  prevent  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  butterine, 
so  that  the  butter  trust  might  be  enabled  to  get  from  30  to  40  cents  a  pound  for  butter, 
depriving,  as  they  would,  a  great  many  of  the  industrial  classes  from  being  able  to  use 
butter  through  its  excessive  price. 

With  the  hired  attorney,  who  is  earning  his  fee,  we  have  nothing  to  say,  only  to 
inform  you  that  these  gentlemen  are  trying  to  ring  in  a  bluff.  You  will  notice  in 
their  circulars  that  by  insinuations  they  would  have  people  believe  they  represent 
some  official  authority.  The  Internal  Revenue  Department  looks  after  their  own 


OLEOMARGARINE.  821 

business  and  the  State  after  theirs,  and  should  this  so-called  Dairy  Union  interfere 
with  your  business  hi  the  way  of  prosecution  as  to  the  State  laws,  we  hereby  guar- 
antee you  protection  to  the  extent  of  paying  all  fines,  costs,  etc.,  until  the  color  law 
is  decided  unconstitutional  in  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  will 
further,  on  receiving  complaint,  take  such  action  for  damages  as  will  make  it  unpleas- 
ant for  some  of  those  who  are  attempting  to  interfere  with  your  and  our  own  legiti- 
mate business. 

We  were  under  the  impression  that  the  severe  censure  they  received  from  the 
judges  during  their  filibustering  of  last  year  would  have  been  sufficient  for  all  time, 
but  have  been  informed  that  to  be  successful  in  obtaining  money  from  farmers  and 
butter  men  a  few  circulars  with  imposing  headlines  are  required. 

We  strongly  recommend  you  to  pay  no  attention  to  those  circulars.     We  have 
always  been  in  a  position  to  protect  our  customers  from  injustice  and  blackmailers, 
and  will  be  ever  at  your  service  should  you  require  our  aid. 
Kespectfully,  yours, 

WM.  J.  MOXLEY. 

J)n  the  following  day  the  following  circular  was  issued  by  Messrs. 
Braun  &  Fitts,  whose  vice-president,  Mr.  Jelke,  has  been  a  constant 
attendant  at  these  hearings,  and  is  printed  on  page  466: 

Every  licensed  butterine  dealer  in  Chicago  has  received  circular  letters  from  the 
secretary  and  attorney  for  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union,  promising  all  sorts  of  trouble  to 
dealers  in  butterine  (that  honest  and  pure  article  of  food).  Well,  now,  don't  you 
believe  a  word  of  it;  there  is  a  law  against  blackmailing,  and  we  want  now  and  here 
to  go  on  record  to  the  assertion,  as  an  affidavit,  that  we  shall  civilly  and  criminally 
prosecute  any  man  or  party  of  men  interfering  unlawfully  with  the  butterine  business 
in  this  or  any  other  State.  We  know  exactly  where  we  stand;  we  are  properly 
advised  on  the  subject,  and  now  we  make  you  a  "  fair  offer:"  "Handle  our  goods  as 
you  always  have;  we  in  turn  promise  and  guarantee  full  protection  against  the  State 
law  (which  has  been  declared  unconstitutional)  to  the  extent  of  paying  cost  of  prose- 
cution, fines,  and  paying  all  costs  pertaining  thereto."  In  declaring  the  law  uncon- 
stitutional one  of  the  judges  stated  to  the  effect  "that  the  butter  ring  were,  in  his 
opinion,  liable  to  prosecution  to  recover  damages  done  an  honest  industry."  Fair 
enough,  isn't  it?  Renew  your  efforts,  and  be  assured  that  we  will  be  prepared  to 
fight  any  number  of  rounds  in  any  kind  of  a  legal  fight  to  the  finish.  Handle  our 
butterine  and  be  safe. 

True  to  its  promise,  the  Illinois  Dairy  Union  began  prosecutions  in 
earnest.,  The  arrests  were  in  every  instance  upon  charge  of  selling 
oleomargarine  for  butter. 

And  as  true  to  their  promise  these  manufacturers  sent  their  attorneys 
and  representatives  into  court  to  defend  these  cases  upon  technical 
grounds. 

The  attorney  who  represented  the  oleomargarine  makers  was  Roy  O. 
West,  with  W orth  E.  Caylor  as  assistant  or  trial  lawyer,  the  former 
appearing  in  court  only  once  or  twice.  The  connection  of  Mr.  Caylor 
with  the  oleomargarine  makers  is  clearly  established  on  page  462,  in 
a  reproduction  of  an  extract  from  a  pamphlet  issued  by  Moxley,  in 
which  he  speaks  of  Mr.  Caylor  as  their  attorney  in  these  cases. 

The  special  representatives  of  the  oleomargarine  makers  at  these 
trials  were  William  Gleeson,  for  Moxley  &  Co.,  and  F.  M.  Lowry,  for 
Braun  &  Fitts,  both  occupying  positions  of  confidence  and  trust  with 
their  respective  concerns.  These  two  representatives  looked  after  the 
comforts  and  convenience  of  those  under  arrest  and  went  their  bonds. 
The  prosecution  made  its  appearance  in  court  nine  times,  and  each 
time  the  bonds  of  these  defendants  were  renewed  by  the  representa- 
tives of  Moxley  and  Braun  &  Fitts. 

The  printed  record  (page  467)  will  show  that  Mr.  Jelke  denied  before 
the  committee  these  charges,  and  stated  emphatically  that  Mr.  Lowry 
did  not  go  on  the  bonds  of  any  retailer  charged  with  selling  oleomar- 
garine for  butter.  On  page  552  will  be  found  a  record  of  the  produc- 


822  OLEOMARGARINE. 

tion  before  the  committee  by  your  orator  of  the  original  bonds  signed 
by  said  Lowry  for  the  appearance  of  some  of  the  most  notorious  of 
these  swindlers  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  as  well  as  the  production  of 
bonds  signed  by  Moxley's  man,  Gleeson,  the  charges  against  each 
defendant  appearing  upon  the  bonds,  and  reading,  "Selling  oleomar- 
garine as  butter." 

In  these  cases  the  facts  set  forth  were  never  denied.  They  were 
defended  purely  upon  technical  grounds,  the  claim  being  set  up  that 
the  statutes  under  which  they  were  brought  had  been  repealed  by 
implication  by  a  later  general  food  act,  and  were  unconstitutional.  The 
Illinois  Dairy  Union  expended  more  than  $1,600  in  an  effort  to  secure 
a  conviction.  A  justice  of  the  peace  took  it  upon  himself  to  adjudicate 
the  question,  and  decided  in  favor  of  the  defense  upon  this  complicated 
point,  and  after  that  we  could  do  nothing  in  the  lower  courts,  although 
we  carried  the  matter  to  the  supreme  court  in  mandamus  proceedings 
in  an  effort  to  compel  the  issue  of  warrants  under  a  law  that  would 
enable  us  to  proceed.  The  judgment  of  the  supreme  court  was  that 
the  issuance  of  a  warrant  was  a  judicial  act,  and  that  a  judge  could  not 
be  compelled  by  mandamus  to  move  judicially.  These  facts  are  all  set 
forth  in  the  testimony  before  the  House  committee. 

Their  very  unique  claim  of  unconstitutionality  is  set  forth  on  page 
467,  which  goes  to  show  that  they  make  the  same  claim  about  every 
law  that  is  attempted  to  be  passed  to  regulate  the  sale  of  their  product, 
i.  e.,  that  it  will  prove  prohibitory.  This  is  from  their  brief,  filed  in 
the  cases  alluded  to  in  the  foregoing: 

It  is  very  evident  that  a  man  who  sells  an  article  can  not  know  the  proportions 
that  any  adulterant  enters  into  the  butter,  unless  he  mixes  or  manufactures  it.  Mere 
hearsay  from  the  person  from  whom  the  seller  purchases  the  article  would  not  be 
evidence  of  the  correct  proportions  or  ingredients,  so  as  to  relieve  the  seller  from  any 
liability.  The  labeling  by  the  manufacturer  or  the  mixer  of  the  article  would  not 
bind  the  seller  with  the  true  knowledge  of  the  constituents  of  the  article  sold. 

Manifestly  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  retailer  or  seller  to  make  a  chemical 
analysis  of  every  article  of  this  kind  that  enters  his  place,  because  it  would  make 
such  additional  expense  that  it  would  prohibit  the  sale  of  the  article.  If  it  would 
prohibit  the  sale  of  the  article  the  statute  is  unconstitutional. 

In  explanation  of  the  above  it  might  be  stated  that  the  law  under 
which  these  prosecutions  were  brought  also  required  the  stamping 
upon  each  retail  package  the  ingredients  and  proportions  thereof  which 
go  to  make  up  the  mixture.  What  they  claimed  here  was  utterly 
impossible  to  do  is  being  done  in  Ohio  every  day,  samples  of  which 
stamps  were  exhibited  before  this  committee  by  Mr.  Schell. 

If  further  evidence  were  needed  of  the  backing  up  of  dealers  in  the 
sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter,  a  notorious  case  occurring  right  here 
in  Washington  a  few  years  ago  might  be  cited,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a 
matter  of  record  in  the  courts  and  with  the  Attorney-General. 

Joseph  Wilkins  was  of  the  firm  of  Wilkins  &  Co. ,  of  Washington, 
whose  brother,  Walter  E.  Wilkins,  comprised  the  company,  the  latter 
now  being  president  of  the  new  Standard  Butterine  Company  of  this 
city. 

Joseph  Wilkins  and  his  clerk,  Howard  Butler,  were,  after  months  of 
surveillance,  detected  removing  the  marks  of  identification  and  reve- 
nue stamps  from  a  carload  of  oleomargarine  in  Philadelphia,  the  prac- 
tice being  to  remove  the  marks  in  that  city  in  the  railroad  yards  and 
send  the  goods  here  to  be  sold  as  pure  butter. 

Joseph  Wilkins  and  Howard  Butler  were  sentenced  to  jail,  with  fines. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  823 

An  attempt  was  made  to  pardon  them.  The  matter  was  brought  before 
President  McKinley,  who  referred  it  to  Attorney-General  Griggs. 
The  latter  wrote  the  President  as  follows,  showing  up  the  character  of 
such  violations,  which  letter  appears  between  pages  612  and  615  in  the 
House  testimony: 

The  petitioners,  Joseph  Wilkins  and  Howard  Butler,  were  convicted  of  fraudu- 
lently removing  labels  from  packages  containing  oleomargarine  in  violation  of  the  act 
of  August  2,  1886,  and  were  sentenced  on  March  17, 1898,  as  to  Wilkins,  to  imprison- 
ment for  six  months  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  $1,500  and  costs,  and,  as  to  Butler,  to 
imprisonment  for  four  months  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  $500  and  costs. 

The  judgment  of  the  district  court  was  subsequently  affirmed  in  the  circuit  court  of 
appeals,  to  which  it  was  taken  by  the  defendants,  and  an  application  subsequently 
made  to  the  Supreme  Court  for  a  writ  of  certiorari  was  denied.  Thereupon,  in 
November  last,  the  petitioners  were  committed  to  serve  their  sentences  of  imprison- 
ment. 

The  grounds  of  the  application  for  a  pardon  as  to  Joseph  Wilkins  are  that  he  has 
a  wife  and  child,  and  that  each  of  the  prisoners  is  of  good  reputation  and  standing, 
and  has  never  been  convicted  of  any  other  crime.  They  request,  hi  view  of  the 
humiliation  and  disgrace  already  suffered  by  them,  as  well  as  of  the  heavy  fines 
imposed,  and  in  view  of  their  good  reputation  and  standing  in  the  community,  and 
of  the  fact  that  no  revenue  has  been  lost  to  the  Government,  that  that  portion  of  the 
sentence  providing  for  imprisonment  be  remitted. 

The  records  of  the  office  of  internal  revenue  show  that  Wilkins  has  been  a  per- 
sistent violator  of  the  oleomargarine  laws,  and  that  prior  to  the  present  prosecution 
he  has  escaped  punishment  by  means  of  money  payments  in  compromise.  The' 
records  show  that  on  December  14,  1893,  Wilkins  filed  a  proposition  to  pay  $2,100 
and  costs  in  compromise  of  all  liabilities,  civil  and  criminal,  incurred  in  the  First 
district  of  Illinois,  for  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter,  and  by  violating  various  sec- 
tions of  the  law  relating  to  wholesale  dealers  in  oleomargarine.  This  offer  wa.s 
accepted  December  26,  1893. 

April  4,  1895,  less  than  a  year  and  a  half  after  the  last  settlement,  Wilkins  again 
filed  an  offer  of  compromise,  agreeing  to  pay  $2,000  in  settlement  of  his  liabilities  for 
alleged  frauds  under  the  oleomargarine  law  committed  in  connection  with  a  firm  in 
West  Virginia.  This  offer  was  also  accepted. 

A  year  later,  April  2,  1896,  Wilkins  was  indicted  with  another  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  for  selling  unstamped  oleomargarine.  On  June  20,  1896,  he  offered  to  pay 
$1,000  in  compromise,  but  this  being  rejected  the  case  went  to  trial  and  the  accused 
was  acquitted.  There  are  three  separate  indictments  against  him  pending  now  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  for  selling  oleomargarine  in  unstamped  packages.  These 
indictments  were  found  January  4,  1897. 

The  offense  of  which  the  petitioners  are  now  convicted  was  committed  December 
20, 1896,  two  days  after  the  verdict  of  acquittal  in  the  trial  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
The  petitioners  were  discovered  by  a  revenue  agent  in  the  act  of  scraping  off  the 
stamps,  marks,  and  brands  from  packages  of  oleomargarine. 

In  connection  with  the  present  case  an  offer  to  pay  $8,000  and  costs  in  compromise 
was  made,  but  rejected  February  23,  1898,  and  thereupon  the  case  went  to  trial  with 
the  result  above  stated. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  business  in  which  Wilkins  was  engaged  must  have  been  one 
of  great  profit,  otherwise  he  could  not  have  afforded  to  make  the  very  large  payments 
in  compromise  which  he  did  make  or  offered  to  make. 

That  he  was  aware  of  the  fraudulent  and  dishonorable  nature  of  the  business  in 
which  he  was  persistently  engaged  appears  from  his  own  statement,  made  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  October  31,  1893,  from  which  ] 
quote  the  following: 

"Having  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  butterine  business,  and  knowing  the  possi- 
bilities of  that  business,  if  worked  in  certain  directions  and  ways,  I  determined  to 
try  it,  having  the  desire  to  make  large  gains  quick.  *  *  *  After  I  found  that 
some  of  my  goods  had  been  seized  in  Cincinnati,  I  settled  up  my  business  as  quickly 
as  possible,  and  did  not  ship  any  more.  I  came  to  you  voluntarily,  and  I  sincerely 
trust  you  will  deal  with  me  as  leniently  as  the  law  will  allow  you,  promising  yoii 
faithfully  that  no  such  thing  as  this  will  ever  occur  again  with  me,  and  if  I  am  allowed 
to  make  a  request,  I  ask  that  I  be  allowed  to  settle  without  having  the  western  houses 
know  anything  of  my  doings,  because  I  know  it  was  very  dishonorable  in  me  to  do 
as  I  have  done,  and  if  I  am  allowed  to  go  along  in  life  without  the  public  knowing 
of  my  misdeeds,  then  I  feel  sure  that  I  can  make  a  new  start  in  some  way  that  is 
entirely  honorable.  I  realize  full  well  that  I  could  have  in  some  way  kept  away 


824  OLEOMARGARINE 

from  the  hands  of  the  law,  but  to  do  this  would  mean  the  staying  away  from  home 
and  relatives,  and,  above  all,  the  constant  strain  on  my  mind,  and  with  the  sense 
that  I  had  done  a  great  wrong  I  could  not  stand  it.  Trusting  that  you  will  allow  me 
to  settle  immediately,  which  will  allow  me  to  drift  back  into  the  channels  of  straight, 
legitimate  business  soon,  I  remain." 

Notwithstanding  that  the  authorities  were  induced  to  settle  with  him  upon  his 
promise  of  abstention  in  the  future  from  similar  violations  of  the  law,  it  appears  that 
he  straightaway  resumed  his  operations,  undoubtedly  taking  courage  from  the  success 
with  which  he  had  compromised  the  first  offenses  in  which  he  had  been  discovered. 

It  is  absolutely  clear  that  for  such  a  persistent  violator  of  the  law  something  more 
than  a  money  penalty  was  essential.  The  sentence  of  imprisonment  imposed  in  this 
case  was  peremptorily  required  by  the  circumstances.  Nor  can  I  say  that  the  sentence 
was  anything  but  moderate.  It  is  less  than  the  average  sentence  imposed  upon  per- 
sistent violators  of  the  internal-revenue  laws  relating  to  the  distillation  of  spirits,  and 
much  less  than  the  ordinary  sentences  imposed  for  violation  of  the  laws  against  the 
use  of  the  mails  for  fraudulent  purposes. 

Not  only  is  the  dignity  of  the  law  to  be  upheld  against  such  persistent  violations, 
but  the  public  is  entitled  to  be  protected  by  the  salutary  influence  of  stern  punish- 
ment against  fraud  and  deception  such  as  were  practiced  in  this  case,  by  means  of 
which  the  petitioners  were  enabled  to  impose  upon  innocent  persons  as  genuine  but- 
ter a  counterfeit  article  which,  if  sold  for  what  it  really  was,  would  have  brought 
very  much  less  in  the  open  market. 

I  do  not  think  that  the  sentences  should  be  interfered  with. 

Who  is  this  man  Wilkins? 

As  soon  as  detected  in  the  act  of  removing  oleomargarine  marks  at 
Philadelphia,  so  that  his  Washington  business  was  no  longer  profitable, 
being  indicted  by  the  Federal  grand  jury,  Wilkins  was  brought  to 
Chicago  by  Messrs.  Braun  &  Fitts,  the  largest  manufacturers  of  oleo- 
margarine in  the  country,  and  given  the  responsible  position  of  direct- 
ing the  salesmen,  which  class  have  for  years  coached  retailers  in  the 
art  of  swindling  the  public. 

Wilkins  held  this  position  as  confidential  man  with  Braun  &  Fitts 
during  the  time  his  case  was  being  fought  in  court  and  the  effort  being 
made  to  pardon  him,  and  went  directly  from  their  employ  to  prison  at 
Philadelphia. 

During  the  time  when  Wilkins's  pardon  was  being  most  actively 
sought  by  the  influence  of  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  two  other 
swindles  of  even  as  great  magnitude,  and  of  the  same  character,  were 
unearthed.  Not,  however,  by  the  Internal-Revenue  Department,  but 
by  the  agricultural  department  of  New  York. 

These  swindles  were  gigantic  in  their  proportions.  The  details  were 
excellently  set  forth  in  the  Times-Herald  of  Chicago,  in  its  issue  of 
Sunday,  February  11.  The  Times-Herald's  account  of  this  swindle 
follows: 

Seek  fraud  in  "  oleo" — Suspicious  of  prime  butter — Revenue  agents  claim  to  have  un- 
earthed a  swindle  on  the  Government — Shipment  seized  and  arrests  made — More  to 
follow. 

Government  officials  from  three  States  are  investigating  what  they  believe  to  be  the 
largest  oleomargarine  fraud  in  the  history  of  the  local  internal-revenue  department. 
The  work  of  the  officers  has  resulted  in  the  arrest  of  John  F.  Rooney,  who  has  had  a 
preliminary  hearing  before  Commissioner  Mason  and  who  is  now  on  bonds  of  $2,500. 

Rooney  is  charged  with  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter.  The  business  was  con- 
ducted in  the  names  of  the  Aurora  Produce  Company  and  the  Elgin  Produce  Com- 
pany. Checks  produced  in  evidence  upon  the  preliminary  hearing  tend  to  show 
that  Rooney  and  his  associates  bought  as  high  as  $1,000  worth  of  the  product  daily 
and  shipped  it  to  customers  in  several  States  who  had  purchased  it  in  the  belief  that 
it  was  high-grade  butter.  It  is  charged  that  in  the  three  or  four  months  that 
Rooney  has  been  operating  he  has  disposed  of  between  $80,000  and  $124,000  worth 
of  oleomargarine,  upon  which  he  made  at  least  40  cents  on  the  dollar.  Rooney's 


OLEOMARGARINE.  825 

arrest  occurred  nearly  three  weeks  ago  at  the  Ceylon  and  Japan  Tea  Company's  place, 
700  West  Forty-seventh  street. 

REVENUE  AGENT  AT  WORK. 

Since  Rooney's  arrest  several  of  the  cleverest  special  agents  in  the  employ  of  the 
Government  have  been  further  investigating  in  the  belief  that  certain  manufacturers 
of  oleomargarine  were  back  of  Rooney.  It  is  also  believed  that  had  the  scheme 
proved  safe  the  fraudulent  dealings  would  have  been  increased  to  a  point  limited  only 
by  the  ability  to  get  customers. 

Last  November  the  Agricultural  Department  learned  that  large  quantities  of  sus- 
picious butter  were  being  reshipped  into  eastern  New  York,  and  W.  H.  Butcher,  of  Troy, 
was  detailed  to  look  the  matter  up.  On  November  27  a  consignment  of  623  tubs  was 
found  in  J.  B.  Wattles' s  store  in  Buffalo.  Samples  were  taken  and  the  consignment 
allowed  to  go.  Agents  followed  it  to  Chicago,  where  the  Wabash  officials  were  told 
that  the  shipment  here  was  a  mistake,  and  that  the  stuff  should  have  been  sent  to 
Liverpool.  It  was  reshipped  and  the  Government  agents  seized  it  in  Detroit.  This 
lot  is  said  to  have  been  sold  by  Edward  Marhoffer,  of  the  Elgin  Produce  Company, 
6242  Halsted  street.  0.  S.  Martin,  special  agent  of  the  internal-revenue  department 
for  Indiana,  was  sent  to  Chicago,  and  found  that  large  quantities  of  oleomargarine 
had  been  shipped  to  John  Schmitz,  of  Milwaukee.  The  latter  told  the  agent  that  a 
man  representing  the  Aurora  Produce  Company  had  called  to  see  him  and  had  said 
that  his  concern  had  a  lot  of  high-grade  butter  which  they  could  sell  at  less  than  pre- 
vailing market  prices.  Schmitz  had  at  various  times  purchased  several  hundred  dol- 
lars' worth  from  the  concern  in  the  belief  that  he  was  buying  good  creamery  butter. 

SCHMITZ  PAYS  HIS   LICENSE. 

Schmitz  was  a  witness  before  the  commissioner  and  has  since  paid  the  Govern- 
ment $480  which  is  required  for  a  wholesale  oleomargarine  license.  The  fact  that  he 
did  not  know  he  was  selling  oleomargarine  did  not  cut  any  figure  with  his  being 
liable  for  the  license  money.  The  department  here  has  a  list  of  forty  or  fifty  dealers 
who  will  have  to  pay  $48  for  a  retail  license  for  having  bought  "prime  butter"  of 
the  concern. 

Agent  Martin  went  to  Aurora  after  seeing  Schmitz  and  began  looking  for  the 
Aurora  Produce  Company.  He  learned  that  a  man  named  Rooney  had  rented  a 
box  at  the  post-office  with  instructions  to  have  placed  in  it  all  his  mail  and  that 
addressed  to  the  Aurora  Produce  Company.  Later  he  had  given  up  the  box  and 
left  instructions  to  have  his  mail  forwarded  to  196  LaSalle  street.  At  this  place 
Attorney  Maurice  Langhouse  told  the  officer  that  Rooney  had  asked  him  to  permit 
his  mail  to  come  there,  and  had  paid  him  $10.  Every  day  a  boy  came  in  and,  plac- 
ing the  mail  in  another  envelope,  forwarded  it  to  Rooney,  at  700  West  Forty-seventh 
street. 

The  agent's  next  move  was  to  rent  a  room  opposite  the  tea  company's  store.  He 
soon  discovered  that  wagons  from  Braun  &  Fitts,  oleomargarine  manufacturers, 
made  almost  daily  deliveries  of  oleomargarine  at  the  store.  There  the  stamps  would 
be  removed  and  Expressman  J.  W.  Foley  would  take  the  stuff  to  various  freight 
offices  for  shipment. 

SEIZURES  AND  ARRESTS. 

When  the  evidence  was  conclusive  seizures  were  made  and  a  warrant  sworn  out 
for  Rooney's  arrest.  It  was  learned  that  his  brother,  Elmer  K.  Rooney,  was  in  the 
deal,  and  a  telegram  was  sent  to  Joliet,  where  he  happened  to  be  selling  "butter," 
to  cause  his  arrest.  Some  one  gave  him  timely  warning  and  he  fled.  It  is  said  that 
Edward  Marhoffer,  George  E.  Brannen,  and  a  man  named  Casey  have  also  disap- 
peared. 

In  connection  with  Rooney,  the  officers  arrested  Patrick  F.  Butler,  who  worked  at 
the  Forty-seventh  street  place.  His  arrest  was  due  to  the  fact  that  all  checks  in 
payment  for  the  oleomargarine  were  made  out  to  Walter  F.  Butler,  and  a  bank  clerk 
identified  Patrick  F.  Butler  as  the  man  who  drew  the  money  on  them.  The  evi- 
dence was  insufficient  to  connect  Butler  with  the  fraud  and  he  was  discharged. 

The  carload  of  oleomargarine  seized  at  Detroit  is  valued  at  $5,000,  and  would  indi- 
cate that  the  fraudulent  dealings  were  even  more  extensive  than  appears  from  the 
evidence  attained  thus  far.  It  is  said  that  the  local  department  is  preparing  to  make 
other  arrests  in  a  few  days,  although  the  warrants  have  not  been  sworn  out.  W.  J. 
Moxley,  who  sold  Rooney  small  amounts  of  oleomargarine;  John  Dadie,  and  former 
Mayor  John  P.  Hopkins  went  on  Rooney's  bond.  Officers  who  have  investigated 


826  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  Rooney  s'  history  before  the  time  they  came  to  Chicago  claim  that  they  were  sup- 
plied with  large  capital  before  engaging  in  the  sale  of  "prime  butter."  When  an 
attempt  was  made  to  gain  possession  of  the  books  of  the  Aurora  Produce  Company  it 
was  learned  that  Rooney  and  another  man  had  burned  them  hi  the  kitchen  stove. 

There  were  a  number  of  very  peculiar  things  about  these  cases,  one 
of  which  was  the  ability  of  these  adventurers,  with  no  known  finan- 
cial responsibility,  to  obtain  credit  for  such  large  amount.  Another 
was  the  fact  that  the  salesman  who  went  into  New  York  and  sold  the 
4 'butter"  proved  to  be  a  traveling  salesman  for  one  of  these  Chicago 
oleomargarine  manufacturers,  and  still  another  peculiar  thing  was  that 
representatives  of  the  firms  of  Braun  &  Fitts  and  W.  J.  Moxley,  the 
Chicago  oleomargarine  manufacturers  who  sold  this  oleomargarine  to 
these  swindlers,  appeared  before  Commissioner  Mason,  and  John 
Dadie,  of  Moxley's  concern,  went  bail  for  Rooney. 

We  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  your  honorable  body  to  the  fol- 
lowing in  the  statement  of  Mr.  Schell,  page  264: 

I  was  talking  with  different  members  of  the  firm  of  French  Brothers'  Dairy  Com- 
pany, at  Cincinnati,  before  I  came  here.  I  might  say  that  Mr.  Tilden  R.  French, 
one  of  the  present  brothers,  has  been  our  county  treasurer.  He  stands  high  politi- 
cally, socially,  and  financially.  The  family  have  been  in  the  dairy  business  from  a 
4 '  time  whence  the  mind  of  man  runneth  not  to  the  contrary."  *  *  *  They  have 
creameries  in  Hamilton  County  and  creameries  in  the  other  southern  counties  of  the 
State.  Mr.  Albert  French  told  me  very  recently  that  they  had  over  $100,000  invested 
in  creameries  in  Warren  County,  one  of  our  adjoining  counties. 

I  want  to  add  here  the  statements  of  Tilden  R.  French  and  Mr.  Albert  French,  of 
French  Brothers,  to  the  effect  that  they  do  not  recognize  olemargarine  as  a  compet- 
itor in  their  business  at  all.  On  the  contrary,  they  commend  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  oleomargarine,  in  that  it  supplies  people  who  are  not  able  to  buy  their 
product. 

Thinking  this  rather  a  strange  position  for  such  a  prominent  firm 
to  take,  I  telegraphed  them  the  purport  of  the  above  statement.  In 
reply  I  received  the  following  telegram,  printed  on  page  473: 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  January  9,  1901. 
Secretary  National  Dairy  Union,  National  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

I^arge  percentage  oleo  sold  here  as  butter.  Hurts  legitimate  butter  business.  We 
want  Grout  bill  passed. 

THE  FRENCH  BROS.  DAIRY  Co. 

And  French  Bros.  Dairy  Company  are  supported  in  this  statement 
by  the  testimony  of  ten  leading  wholesalers  in  butter  at  Cincinnati, 
whose  letters  are  published  on  pages  474,  475,  and  476,  nearly  every 
one  of  which  tell  of  a  fund  of  one-half  cent  per  pound  laid  aside  to 
defend  violators  when  prosecuted. 

One  of  these  Cincinnati  merchants  writes: 

Of  course  the  wholesaler,  in  selling  to  the  retailer,  sells  oleomargarine  for  what  it 
is;  he  could  not  do  otherwise.  The  retailer  sells  90  per  cent  of  what  he  buys  for 
butter,  and  gets  butter  prices  for  it.  More  than  100  retail  grocery  stores  in  Cincinnati 
are  to-day  advertising  the  best  Elgin  Creamery  at  retail  for  25  cents,  while  it  is  worth 
25£  cents  in  a  jobbing  way.  The  only  opportunity  in  such  transactions  for  profit 
is  to  substitute  oleomargarine  for  butter,  which  is  being  done  to  a  very  great  extent, 

Another  one  says: 

It  is  the  retailers  who  offer  it  to  the  unsuspecting  public  as  the  genuine  butter,  and 
this  without  any  interference.  We  know  this  to  be  a  fact  from  transactions  of  this 
nature  in  Cincinnati. 

A  third  substantiates  the  others,  as  follows: 

DEAR  SIR:  We  have  just  seen  a  telegram  that  a  statement  had  been  made  to  the 
committee  that  all  oleomargarine  was  sold  as  such  in  Cincinnati.  We  wish  to 


OLEOMARGARINE.  82  7 

emphatically  deny  such  statement.  The  wholesale  dealers  may,  as  the  United  States 
Government  compels  them  to,  but  the  retailers  sell  it  any  way  just  to  sell  it,  because 
they  are  protected  by  the  wholesale  dealers,  who  pay  their  fines  if  caught.  We 
know  it  is  sold  as  butter  from  personal  observation.  We  also  know  that  the  retail 
dealer  is  protected  in  selling  it,  as  our  customers  tell  us  when  they  take  out  licenses 
that  they  have  no  fear,  as  the  wholesale  dealers  pay  their  fines  if  arrested.  If  no 
check  is  put  on  this  fraud  or  imposition  on  the  consumer,  it  is  only  a  question  of 
time  when  the  dairy  interests  will  be  overwhelmed. 

A  fourth  has  this  to  say: 

The  wholesalers  guarantee  the  retailers  protection  and  pay  their  fines.  If  the 
Government  does  not  pass  the  Grout  bill,  butter  will  soon  be  a  thing  of  the  past,  as 
honest  dealers  in  pure  butter  can  not  compete  with  fraud.  Some  of  the  retailers 
make  no  effort  any  more  to  sell  for  oleo,  as  the  wholesalers  pay  the  fines.  There  is 
nothing  too  mean  or  low  for  the  oleo  dealers  to  do. 

And  another  says: 

This  butterine  is  sold  here  by  retailers,  grocers,  market  hucksters,  and  everybody 
else,  and  is  palmed  off  to  the  trade  for  butter.  The  wholesalers  here  have  told  us 
that  they  charge  one-half  cent  a  pound  advance,  and  lay  that  money  aside  to  fight 
the  food  inspectors.  Every  time  a  man  is  arrested,  and  from  5  to  20  a  week  are 
arrested  for  palming  off  butterine  for  butter,  these  wholesale  men  protect  them. 
They  come  up  and  pay  the  fine  and  the  retailer  sells  it  again. 

A  sixth  writes: 

If  I  am  informed  rightly,  you  want  to  know  if  oleo  is  being  sold  for  butter.  It  is 
not  sold  for  butter  by  the  wholesale  dealers,  but  the  deception  practiced  by  the 
retailers  is  where  the  mischief  is  done.  Every  now  and  then  a  raid  is  made  on  these 
dealers.  They  are  arrested,  fined  $50  and  costs,  which  is  paid  by  the  wholesaler  who 
furnishes,  and  in  turn  he  charges  one-half  cent  extra  on  the  oleo  for  this  protection. 

And  a  seventh: 

DEAR  SIR:  I  learn  from  some  of  the  members  of  the  produce  exchange  of  our  city 
that  a  committee  of  oleomargarine  men  have  reported  in  Washington  that  oleomar- 
garine is  sold  as  oleomargarine  only  in  our  city,  which  is  false  in  its  entirety.  I 
know  positively  that  there  is  sold  daily  thousands  of  pounds  of  oleomargarine  for 
pure  butter,  and  that  the  food  and  dairy  commissioners  are  either  powerless  or  are 
indisposed  to  antagonize. 

While  there  are  some  arrests  being  made,  it  seems  to  be  on  account  of  local  petty 
jealousies  among  dealers,  and  not  touching  on  the  main  offense.  The  oleomargarine 
dealers  have  a  corruption  fund  with  which  they  encourage  the  retail  dealers  to  sell 
oleomargarine  for  butter. 

The  following  extract  from  the  testimony  on  page  163  gives  the  esti- 
mate of  Hon.  J.  C.  Blackburn,  food  commissioner  of  Ohio,  of  the  pro- 
portion of  oleomargarine  which  ultimately  goes  to  the  consumer  as 
butter  in  his  State: 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  what  percentage  of  oleomargarine,  in  your 
judgment,  in  the  State  of  Ohio  is  sold  for  butter  at  retail  stores,  or  finally  sold  upon 
the  tables  of  hotels,  restaurants,  and  boarding  houses,  as  well  as  to  the  ordinary  con- 
sumer? 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  I  would  have  to  guess  at  that,  Mr.  Adams.  My  judgment  would 
be  75  per  cent  of  it. 

In  speaking  of  the  condition  which  prevailed  in  Philadelphia  a  short 
time  ago,  Mr.  Luther  H.  Kauffman,  attorney  for  the  pure  butter  pro- 
tective association  of  that  city,  said  before  your  honorable  committee, 
as  shown  on  page  238: 

We  found  again,  in  February  of  1899,  with  this  same  United  States  law  still  in 
force,  not  a  dealer  in  oleomargarine  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  but  who  was  selling 
oleomargarine  as  and  for  butter;  and  the  detectives  went  out  and  paid  butter  prices 
for  it,  paying  as  high  as  40  cents  a  pound  for  oleomargarine  bought  as  butter. 

I  have  the  cases  here.  There  [exhibiting  paper]  is  the  list  of  cases,  with  the  date 
of  purchase  and  the  name  and  address  of  the  party.  These  are  purchases  made  dur- 


828  OLEOMARGARINE. 

ing  that  time  by  this  association.  There  they  are,  right  straight  along,  page  after 
page — more  than  500  cases  of  purchases  of  oleomargarine  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 
I  am  going  to  give  you  a  summary  of  them.  There  are  in  this  list  more  than  500 
cases  of  purchases  of  oleomargarine  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  The  detectives,  in 
every  single  case,  without  exception,  asked  for  butter;  and  they  got  oleomargarine 
at  butter  prices,  without  any  indication  from  the  seller  that  it  was  oleomargarine. 
There  you  have  a  fraud  directly  upon  the  purchaser. 

Now,  let  me  give  you  a  summary  of  these  cases.  How  many  were  marked?  There 
are  508  cases  here.  I  have  the  details  there.  I  am  not  talking  about  supposititious 
cases.  Every  case  is  there,  with  the  name  and  date  and  the  result.  These  detectives 
went  into  these  places,  places  kept  by  men  who  were  supposed  to  be  selling  oleomar- 
garine and  who  had  paid  revenue  taxes.  They  asked  for  butter.  Five  hundred 
and  eight  purchases  were  made.  Of  those  508  purchases,  49  were  butter  and  459 
were  oleomargarine. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  heard  a  great  many  theories,  but  one  ounce  of  fact  is  worth 
tons  of  theories.  That  is  a  fact.  There  was  not  a  single  case  of  oleomargarine  sold 
as  oleomargarine.  Of  this  large  number  of  purchases  there  were  marked  surrepti- 
tiously, marked  on  the  packages  inside,  marked  with  the  word  " Oleomargarine" 
turned  down,  perhaps  50  cases.  Oh,  if  I  were  to  go  on  to  tell  you  the  trickery,  the 
fraud,  the  schemes  resorted  to  to  deceive  the  purchaser,  I  could  talk  to  you  here 
for  two  hours.  But  I  will  not  go  into  such  detail.  The  simple  statement  of  the  mat- 
ter is  that  every  one  of  these  purchases  was  made  as  butter,  while  out  of  508  pur- 
chases only  49  were  butter  and  the  balance  were  oleomargarine. 

*  *  *  No  law  or  regulation  can  be  made  to  prevent  the  sale  of  colored  oleomar- 
garine as  and  for  butter.  I  do  not  care  what  your  penalties  are.  Therefore,  because 
of  the  impossibility  of  selling  colored  oleomargarine  under  restrictions,  we  ask  that  if 
colored  oleomargarine  shall  be  sold  at  all  the  manufacturer  shall  pay  10  cents  a  pound 
tax  upon  it,  so  as  to  make  the  expense  of  the  article  so  much  more. 

In  relating  his  experience  with  oleomargarine,  Mr.  John  J.  Habacker, 
one  of  the  delegation  of  buttermen  from  Philadelphia,  who  appeared 
before  this  committee,  said,  as  shown  on  page  217: 

Now,  I  personally  went  into  the  butter  business  hi  1878.  I  stood  behind  the 
counter  and  retailed  butter  to  the  amount  of  $35,000  a  year,  and  I  have  yet  the  first 
person  to  come  to  me  and  ask  me  for  oleomargarine — that  is,  a  private  individual. 
My  experience  in  the  business  all  through  is  that  oleomargarine  is  a  fraud  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end;  that  it  is  made  in  the  semblance  of  butter  and  is  sold  for 
butter. 

And  the  statement  which  follows,  printed  on  pages  224  and  226,  was 
made  by  Mr.  W.  F.  Drennen,  one  of  the  most  substantial  of  Philadel- 
phia's wholesale  buttermen,  who  also  appeared  here  personally: 

We  used  to  handle  oleomargarine  many  years  ago.  We  handled  it  largely  up  to 
the  time  the  first  law  was  enacted,  and  we  have  handled  it  pending  the  decision  on 
the  constitutionality  of  our  State  law.  After  it  became  a  settled  fact  that  we  could 
not  handle  it  without  violating  the  law,  we  quit  it.  *  *  *  After  being  in  the 
commission  butter  business  over  twenty  years  I  can  call  to  mind  only  one  instance 
in  which  a  consumer  ever  admitted  that  he  bought  it  willingly  or  bought  it  for  what 
it  was.  That  may  seem  very  strange  to  you,  and  yet  it  is  true.  I  repeat  that  I  can 
recall  but  one  instance  in  all  my  lifetime  where  any  person  admitted  that  he  bought 
it  knowingly  for  what  it  was  because  he  wanted  it  on  his  table. 

Now,  then,  I  think  the  facts  will  bear  me  out  in  that.  As  chairman  of  the  executive 
committee  of  the  Pure  Butter  Association,  we  were  compelled  two  years  ago  to  enforce 
our  State  law  through  the  medium  of  what  money  we  could  raise  on  the  street  and 
through  appointing  our  own  attorney  and  our  own  detectives.  After  having  pur- 
chased about  161  samples  and  having  them  analyzed,  and  having  those  purchases 
recorded  in  a  book  where  we  could  have  access  to  them,  the  question  came  up:  "How 
many  purchases  were  made  in  which  the  vender  gave  them  to  the  purchaser  for  oleo- 
margarine?" Butter  was  asked  for,  of  course.  Out  of  161  cases,  one  was  sold  for 
exactly  what  it  was.  The  160  were  sold  for  butter  and  at  practically  butter  prices. 

*  I  have  enough  knowledge  of  the  oleomargarine  business  to  know  that  it 
is  not  sold  for  what  it  is;  that  there  is  no  wholesaler  who  wante  it  sold  for  what  it  is, 
and  that  in  fact  there  is  no  manufacturer  who  really  wants  it  sold  for  what  it  is,  for 
the  reason  that  he  can  make  a  great  deal  more  out  of  it  and  sell  a  great  deal  more  of 
it  through  having  it  sold  for  butter. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  829 

Now,  then,  I  do  not  want  to  forget  anything.  1  came  near  forgetting  a  point  that 
I  wished  to  make.  We  formerly  sold  to  one  man  perhaps  $50,000  worth  of  high- 
grade  oleomargarine  every  year.  That  man  had  a  rule  behind  his  stalls,  where  he 
had  four  cutters,  that  if  one  of  them  ever  gave  away  the  fact  that  oleomargarine  wag 
being  sold  in  that  stall  he  did  it  at  the  peril  of  his  position,  and  he  maintained  that 
rule  for  years.  I  can  think  of  three  gentlemen  in  Camden  who  bought  it  and  sold  it, 
and  they  will  tell  you  to-day  that  a  pound  never  went  out  of  their  possession  except 
for  genuine  butter,  and  they  would  not  dare  do  it,  and  they  would  not  do  it.  They 
sold  it  all  for  butter. 

Now  those  are  the  facts.  I  would  be  glad  to  be  permitted  to  sell  oleomargarine  if 
there  were  any  demand  for  it  as  such.  But  99  per  cent  of  it  is  sold  fraudulently. 
That  is  absolutely  my  candid  conviction,  and  it  is  what  I  gather  from  facts  that  have 
come  under  my  own  knowledge.  Every  dealer  to  whom  we  sold  oleomargarine  would 
tell  you  that  he  never  could  sell  it,  or  would  not  sell  it,  except  as  butter,  for  the  reason 
that  he  would  not  want  his  trade  to  know  he  was  handling  oleo.  If  he  did,  the  cus- 
tomer would  say,  "Why  don't  you  let  me  have  it  at  a  reasonable  price?"  The 
dealer  would  sell  it  at  a  price  about  a  cent  below  that  of  fancy  butter;  hence  the 
enormous  profit. 

Mr.  Samuel  Jamison,  also  of  Philadelphia,  appeared  before  the  com- 
mittee, and  his  evidence  appears  on  page  232,  Senate  testimony,  from 
which  we  take  the  following: 

We  ask  for  additional  legislation  because  we  find  that  the  goods  can  not  be  con- 
trolled except  at  the  factory.  The  minute  they  leave  the  factory  the  deception  begins. 
As  reputable  merchants,  merchants  of  standing,  with  capital  behind  us,  and  with 
prominent  locations  in  the  center  of  a  large  city,  we  can  not  violate  these  laws.  We 
are  the  first  men  to  be  arrested  if  we  do  violate  them.  But  we  have  customers  who 
sell  these  goods  at  retail.  After  they  get  possession  of  those  goods,  they  remove  all 
marks  absolutely.  They  remove  the  revenue  stamp;  they  scrape  the  word  "oleo- 
margarine" off  the  boxes.  They  receive  the  oleomargarine  itself  without  any  marks 
whatever  on  it.  Then  they  proceed  to  sell  it  as  butter.  *  *  * 

I  doubt  very  much  whether  any  individual  can  go  to  any  one  of  those  retail  dealers 
who  has  a  Government  license  to  sell  oleomargarine  and  succeed  in  obtaining  oleo- 
margarine if  he  asks  for  it.  I  have  repeatedly  asked  retail  dealers  who  had  a  Gov- 
ernment license  (generally  under  some  assumed  name;  instead  of  taking  their  own 
name,  they  call  themselves  some  creamery  company  or  other)  for  oleomargarine.  I 
have  said  to  these  men,  "Are  you  handling  oleomargarine?"  "No;  I  do  not  sell  it." 
Still,  we  know  that  they  pay  tor  a  Government  license.  We  know  that  they  receive 
the  goods.  We  know  that  they  sell  to  their  regular  trade,  every  day,  oleomargarine 
for  butter.  A  stranger  who  comes  to  one  of  their  places  of  business  and  asks  for  but- 
ter will  probably  receive  butter,  because  he  is  an  unknown  buyer;  but  to  their  reg- 
ular trade  we  find  that  they  sell  oleomargarine  to  this  day,  in  spite  of  what  may 
be  called  the  prohibitory  law  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  and  a  national  law  which 
requires  oleomargarine  to  be  marked.  We  find  it  simply  impossible  to  control  the 
sale  of  oleomargarine  as  oleomargarine  after  the  goods  leave  the  factory. 

From  Baltimore,  Mr.  S.  B.  Medairy,  of  the  firm  of  Bosee,  Medairy 
&  Co. ,  and  president  of  the  protective  association  of  Baltimore,  appeared, 
and  made,  among  others,  the  following  statement,  as  printed  on  pages 
4AO  and  M2: 

During  that  time  (two  years) ,  as  well  as  my  memory  serves  me,  out  of  nearly  one 
hundred  and  forty-one  cases — I  think  that  was  the  exact  number,  although  I  may  be 
mistaken  in  regard  to  one  or  two  cases — there  was  not  a  single  retail  sale  in  the  course 
of  prosecution  but  what  was  sold  as  and  for  butter  by  the  storekeeper  or  the  restau- 
rateur, and  in  many  instances  we  found  that  the  people  who  were  being  prosecuted 
were  innocent  of  any  intention  of  violating  the  law,  but  had  been  deceived  by  the 
vender,  who  in  turn  had  bought  his  product  from  the  manufacturer's  agent,  but  had, 
subsequent  to  its  purchase,  taken  the  product  from  the  original  package  and  placed 
it  in  a  basket  or  a  box,  a  vessel  of  some  kind,  and  sold  it  as  and  for  butter.  The 
uninitiated,  not  being  able  to  distinguish  one  from  the  other  by  virtue  of  its  sem- 
blance, bought  the  same  for  butter  and  in  turn  sold  it  as  such. 

We  have  yet  to  have  an  arrest  of  a  dealer,  other  than  a  manufacturer's 
agent,  and  my  statement  can  be  verified  upon  investigation,  wherein  anyone,  with- 
out exception,  man,  woman,  or  child,  sold  colored  oleomargarine  as  and  for  such. 


830  OLEOMARGARINE. 

From  Hon.  G.  L.  Flanders,  assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture 
for  the  State  of  New  York,  we  have  the  following  statements,  printed 
on  pages  121,  135,  and  125,  respectively: 

In  1878  it  appeared  in  the  State  of  New  York  that  oleomargarine  was  being  sold, 
and  sold  as  butter.  It  was  thought  then  that  the  State  would  try  to  regulate  the 
matter.  It  passed  a  statute  that  the  goods  might  be  sold,  but  should  be  branded  as 
such.  That  law  proved  ineffective,  and  in  1880  the  State  passed  another  act  provid- 
ing that  when  sold  it  should  be  branded  as  oleomagarine.  That  act,  although  more 
restrictive,  proved  ineffective;  and  in  1882  the  State  passed  another  law  more 
restrictive,  and  that  failed  to  produce  a  result,  and,  finally,  hi  1884  it  passed  an  act 
providing  oleomargarine  should  not  be  sold  as  a  substitute  for  butter.  That  act  was 
declared  unconstitutional.  *  *  * 

For  sixteen  years  I  have  been  watching  this  work,  seeing  it  go  on.  There  is  a  gen- 
tleman here  representing  a  large  firm  in  Chicago.  They  came  down  into  our  State 
two  or  three  years  ago  and  attempted  to  put  in  oleomargarine.  I  myself  went  into 
the  city  of  Cohoes  with  two  other  men.  We  watched  for  two  weeks.  We  finally 
found  that  it  came  in  over  the  railroad  in  barrels  of  10-pound  tubs,  with  canvas  over 
the  heads  of  the  barrels.  We  had  it  watched  day  and  night.  I  went  myself  with 
men  from  house  to  house  inhabited  by  French  families  who  could  not  speak  a  word 
of  English.  I  asked  an  old  woman  if  she  bought  it  for  butter.  She  could  not  speak 
any  English.  I  got  a  little  girl  there  to  ask  the  old  lady  what  she  bought  it  for,  and 
she  said,  "For  butter."  "For  pure  butter?"  I  asked.  She  said,  "Yes."  I  said, 
"  What  did  you  pay?"  She  told  me  22  cents,  and  that  was  the  price  of  butter.  It 
was  sold  to  those  people  for  butter.  It  has  been  our  experience  for  sixteen  years 
in  the  State  of  New  York  that  that  is  what  is  done.  *  *  * 

Now,  I  am  not  guessing  or  talking  at  random,  for  in  1884  and  1885,  when  we  com 
menced  to  enforce  these  laws,  you  were  selling,  or  those  who  were  in  the  same  busi- 
ness that  you  are  in  to-day  were  selling,  in  the  State  of  New  York  15,000,000  pounds, 
and  they  told  the  same  story  then  as  glibly  as  you  tell  it  now — that  they  wanted  to 
sell  it  for  what  it  was.  Our  men  went  into  the  city  of  New  York,  and  if  they  went 
into  a  store  where  they  were  known  and  called  for  butter  they  got  butter;  but  just 
as  soon  as  they  put  on  the  garments  of  'longshoremen,  which  they  did  in  a  great 
many  instances,  to  see  what  the  facts  were,  and  took  a  basket  upon  their  arms  and 
bought  a  quarter  of  a  pound  of  tea  and  a  loaf  of  bread,  they  got  oleomargarine. 
This  is  no  fanciful  dream.  It  is  a  fact. 

And  from  another  assistant,  Mr.  Kracke,  having  charge  of  the 
enforcement  of  the  law  in  Greater  New  York,  we  have  the  following 
statement,  on  pages  365  and  36Y: 

It  is  said  here  by  some  of  the  friends  of  the  bill  that  75  per  cent  of  the  oleomarga- 
rine sold  is  sold  as  and  for  butter.  Now,  I  rather  disagree  with  them.  From  my 
experience  in  New  York,  and  I  have  had  five  years'  experience  there  in  enforcing  the 
law,  I  rather  disagree  with  that  proposition  and  that  statement.  Every  ounce  of  it 
that  is  sold  in  New  York  is  sold  as  and  for  butter. 

Now,  from  New  Jersey  these  peddlers  with  wagons  come  over  and  deliver  oleo- 
margarine to  private  houses  and  boarding  houses  in  this  way: 

An  agent  will  come  along,  calling  at  the  different  houses,  asking  for  the  mistress  of 
the  house,  and  tell  her  a  story  about  how  he  can  deliver  her  some  nice  creamery  but- 
ter for  a  certain  price  if  she  will  contract  with  him  for  a  year.  Of  course  that  price 
will  always  be  from  5  to  10  cents  below  the  creamery-butter  price— 5  cents,  as  a  rule. 
Then,  after  she  has  seen  the  cheapness  of  the  thing,  the  saving  in  the  price,  believing 
this  to  be  genuine  butter,  she  will  give  the  order.  Then,  a  few  days  later,  these 
wagons  come  over  from  New  Jersey  into  New  York  to  deliver  these  goods.  They  are 
bought  for  and  as  butter. 

On  page  367  Mr.  Kracke  tells  of  one  ingenious  method  uncovered 
for  the  fraudulent  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter. 

The  method  is  this:  The  man  has  a  boy  there  in  the  store.  Next  time  you  go  there 
you  will  see  this  boy  walking  in  the  place.  As  the  men,  about  10  or  11  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  get  their  orders  ready  and  they  are  put  in  the  wagon  for  delivery,  this 
boy  will  be  walking  up  and  down,  watching  the  orders.  He  will  have  on  a  very 
large  coat.  This  coat  is  very  heavily  lined,  and  it  is  interlined  and  in  terse  wed  so 
that  it  will  permit  a  number  of  pound  prints  of  oleomargarine  to  be  placed  in  the 
lining.  The  boy  will  go  with  the  wagon,  and  when  it  gets  to  a  certain  house  where 
he  wants  to  deliver  oleomargarine  with  the  order,  whereas  butter  has  been  ordered, 


'  OLEOMARGARINE.  83 1 

he  will  take  one  print  or  two  prints  out  of  the  lining  of  his  coat  pocket,  put  it  in  the 
order,  and  take  it  in  the  house. 

That  is  an  illustration  of  how  they  sell  oleomargarine  for  butter,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  MILLER.  What  do  they  do  on  hot  days? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  This  was  not  a  hot  day.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  MILLER.  How  many  pounds  did  this  boy  carry  at  once? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  He  carried  28  pounds. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Now,  do  you  mean  to  tell  the  committee  that  the  person  to 
whom  that  oleomargarine  was  delivered  was  deceived  in  the  purchase? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Unquestionably. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  know  that,  or  is  it  simply  a  question  of  opinion? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  I  know  it  absolutely,  because  we  went  there  and  asked  them,  and 
after  that  they  testified  to  it.  Moreover,  they  paid  28  cents  a  pound  for  it. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  In  how  many  instances  did  you  find  that  to  be  true? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  In  every  instance. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  How  many  were  there? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  What  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Of  how  many  cases  of  that  kind  have  you  any  recollection? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  One  thousand.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Do  you  mean  prosecutions? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  One  thousand  prosecutions. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  What  was  the  prosecution  for — selling  oleomargarine  for  butter? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Selling  oleomargarine  for  butter. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Or  was  it  for  selling  oleomargarine  colored? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  Selling  colored  oleomargarine  for  butter. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  That  was  what  the  prosecution  was  for? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  That  was  what  the  prosecution  was  for,  and  there  were  1,000  convic- 
tions, too. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  In  how  long  a  time? 

Mr.  KRACKE.  In  the  last  three  or  four  years.     Do  you  want  me  to  go  back  further? 

And  on  page  450  the  following  statement  from  the  Hon.  S.  C.  Bas- 
set, president  state  board  of  agriculture  of  Nebraska,  who  appeared 
before  this  committee: 

In  my  own  State  very  few  measures  before  Congress  have  ever  created  the  interest 
among  our  farmers  that  this  one  does. 

We  have  been  struggling  for  years  to  suppress  the  fraudulent  sale  of  oleomargarine 
as  and  for  butter.  By  a  large  majority  in  the  house  and  with  but  two  dissenting 
votes  in  the  senate  we  passed  in  1895  a  law  prohibiting  the  sale  of  imitation  butter 
colored  yellow. 

This  law  is  openly  violated.  Large  quantities  of  oleomargarine  of  a  yellow  color 
are  sold,  and  I  fully  believe  90  per  cent  of  the  same  is  sold  to  the  consumer  as  and 
for  butter. 

#*****# 

It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten,  but  should  be  kept  constantly  in  mind,  that  the 
exceedingly  large  profits  which  dealers  in  oleomargarine  receive  is  the  reason  why  its 
sale  is  so  strenuously  pushed.  Those  who  divide  the  profits  of  this  most  profitable 
business  are  comparatively  few  in  number,  and  the  retail  dealers,  wh^  are  the  princi- 
pal violators  of  the  law,  receive  the  lion's  share  of  the  profit,  considering  the  amount 
handled.  With  us  a  retail  dealer  makes  not  to  exceed  an  average  of  2  cents  per 
pound  on  butter  sold,  while  the  retail  dealer  in  oleomargarine  makes  a  profit  of  8  to 
10  cents  per  pound. 

By  State  legislation  we  seem  well-nigh  powerless  to  control  this  fraud,  and  this  is 
why  we  come  to  the  National  Congress,  believing  that  this  is  the  only  power  which 
can  compel  the  sale  of  this  product  on  its  own  merits  and  for  what  it  is. 

When  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  the  Hon.  James  Wilson, 
appeared  before  this  committee,  he  was  asked  and  answered  a  question 
as  follows: 

Mr.  SCHELL.  I  would  like  to  ask  further,  if  you  know  from  your  own  experience  or 
from  the  reports  that  have  come  to  you  of  a  single  case  where  the  consumer  has  ever 
been  prosecuted  because  of  being  defrauded  by  the  dealer. 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  can  find  plenty  of  such  cases  in  this  very  city.  *  *  * 
There  is  no  question  about  the  everyday  deception  of  us  people  who  have  to  buy 
butter. 


832  OLEOMARGARINE. 

And  later,  in  reply  to  a  question  by  Senator  Money  (p.  421),  Mr. 
Wilson  said: 

Well,  you  have  a  perfect  right  to  buy  oleomargarine,  but  I  do  not  want  you  to 
be  deceived  and  pay  10  cents  a  pound  too  much.  The  poor  people  are  being  robbed 
by  this  deception  to  the  extent  of  10  cents  a  pound;  and  you  and  I,  who  have  to 
take  butter  from  second  or  third  hands  in  this  city,  are  deceived  regularly.  If  you 
will  send  me  samples  of  the  butter  you  are  eating  between  now  and  spring,  I  will  tell 
you  the  percentage  of  it  that  is  oleomargarine.  I  will  have  it  analyzed.  In  fact,  we 
nave  been  analyzing  it  for  members  of  Congress  who  have  sent  samples  to  us. 

Said  President  Cleveland,  in  his  message  approving  the  oleomargarine  legislation 
of  1886,  as  shown  by  evidence  before  House  committee,  page  3: 

"Not  the  least  important  incident  related  to  this  legislation  is  the  defense  afforded 
to  the  consumer  against  the  fraudulent  substitution  and  sale  of  an  imitation  for  a 
genuine  article  of  food  of  a  very  general  household  use.  *  *  *  I  venture  to  say 
that  hardly  a  pound  ever  entered  a  poor  man's  house  under  its  real  name  and  in  its 
true  character." 

THE   COLOR  QUESTION. 

The  entire  question  now  before  Congress  is,  Shall  the  General  Gov- 
ernment aid,  through  the  Grout  bill,  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of 
the  various  States  which  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine colored  in  semblance  of  butter? 

It  is  admitted  and  expected  that  colored  oleomargarine  with  a  tax 
of  10  cents  per  pound  upon  it  will  have  to  compete  in  price  with  but- 
ter. The  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  law  is  to  bring  its  cost  of 
production  up  to  such  a  figure  that  there  will  be  no  incentive  of  a 
large  profit,  which  is  now  the  sole  cause  of  the  great  fraud  being  per- 
petrated upon  the  public  at  the  expense  of  producers  of  pure  butter. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  producers  of  butter  do  in  many  months  of  the 
year  color  their  product.  But  they  claim  that  they  have  done  this 
from  time  "whence  the  mind  of  man  runneth  not  back."  To  quote 
Senator  Dolliver,  "The  poets  speak  of  butter  as  yellow."  Henry  C. 
Pirrung,  general  manager  of  the  Capital  City  Dairy  Company,  Colum- 
bus, Ohio,  makers  of  oleomargarine,  in  his  statement  (see  p.  188)  said: 

On  the  contrary,  in  my  humble  opinion  the  coloring  of  butter  should  be  allowed, 
because  even  the  school  child  who  has  passed  the  primary  grade  will  define  the  color 
of  butter  as  "yellow,"  and  every  adult  expects  at  this  advanced  age  to  have  the 
product  served  to  him  "yellow." 

Mr.  Rathbone  Gardner,  attorney  for  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing 
Company,  oleomargarine  makers,  of  Providence,  R.  L,  said,  as  recorded. 
on  page  33: 

Even  before  the  invention  of  the  great  creameries,  and  before  the  use  of  the  sub- 
stance which  has  now  been  adopted  for  coloring  it,  butter  has  always  been  artificially 
colored. 

Hon.  G.  L.  Flanders,  assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture  of  New 
York  State,  is  reported,  on  page  125,  as  follows: 

Now,  how  about  the  question  of  competition?  In  the  first  place,  let  us  no  back  to 
the  color  of  butter.  The  natural  color  of  butter,  when  the  cow  is  living  on  nature's 
food,  is  a  rich  yellow.  Butter  has  been  that  color  so  long  that  the  memory  of  man 
runneth  not  to  the  contrary.  When  these  people,  back  in  the  seventies,  started  to 
make  oleomargarine  what  did  they  do?  They  undertook  to  make  it  look  like  our 
commodity.  Is  that  all?  No.  In  taste  and  smell  they  attempted  to  make  it  like 
our  commodity,  so  that  every  feature  would  deceive  every  sense  that  man  could  pos- 
pibly  apply  to  the  commodity.  Were  they  content  with  that?  No,  sir.  They  came 
into  the  market  and  sold  it  for  butter. 

It  seems  to  be  settled,  therefore,  that  butter  has  always  been  known, 
spoken  of,  and  looked  upon  as  yellow.  Therefore  the  only  question 


OLEOMARGARINE.  833 

is,  has  a  new  article  the  right  to  come  in  and  usurp  a  characteristic 
absolutely  foreign  to  its  natural  condition  under  any  circumstance  and 
the  distinct  property  of  another  popular  and  more  expensive  article 
for  centuries? 

To  settle  this  question,  we  must  inquire,  why  should  not  the  new 
article  assume  the  cloak  and  color  of  the  older  and  more  popular  and 
expensive  ? 

The  answer,  as  we  claim  is  shown  by  the  testimony,  is  that  the 
yellow  color  in  oleomargarine  makes  it  look  like  butter  and  causes 
thousands  to  buy  it  at  a  butter  price,  thinking  it  is  butter,  or  to  con- 
sume it  as  butter  when  they  would  reject  it  if  its  real  character  were 
not  concealed  by  the  yellow  color.  The  color  in  butter  fools  nobody 
into  believing  it  is  anything  else. 

How  do  we  prove  that  the  yellow  color  in  oleomargarine  is  used  to 
deceive  ? 

First,  by  the  common  sense  of  every  man  who  knows  he  has  eaten 
oleomargarine  hundreds  of  times  at  public  houses,  because  a  large 
proportion  of  them  serve  it,  and  not  having  recognized  it.  Had  it 
not  been  disguised  by  the  color,  he  would  have  known  it  at  the  time. 

But  to  go  to  the  testimony  and  prove  our  case  by  the  record. 

On  April  5,  1899,  William  J.  Moxley,  of  Chicago,  sent  his  trade  the 
following  circular  letter,  as  shown  in  the  House  testimony  (page  606): 

[William  J.  Moxley,  manufacturer  of  fine  butterine,  63  and  65  West  Monroe  street.] 

CHICAGO,  April  6,  1899. 

NOTICE  TO   THE  TRADE. 

Inclosed  find  a  color  card,  which  is  as  near  the  color  of  our  butterine  aa  the  print- 
er's art  can  represent.  Our  aim  in  sending  you  this  card  is  to  aid  you  in  selecting 
the  proper  color  suitable  to  your  trade.  Mistakes  are  easily  made,  but  hard  to  remedy. 

In  nearly  every  section  of  the  country  there  is  a  difference  in  the  color  of  butter, 
and  even  in  certain  seasons  of  the  year  there  is  a  change,  as  you  will  have  noticed. 
In  winter  butter  is  of  a  lighter  color  than  in  summer;  in  many  sections  this  is  the 
result  of  the  difference  in  feed  or  pasture. 

We  can  give  you  just  what  you  want  at  all  seasons  if  we  know  your  requirements. 
As  an  example:  No.  1  has  no  coloring  matter;  No.  2  a  little  coloring,  and  so  on  to 
No.  8,  which  is  the  highest-colored  goods  we  turn  out.     Preserve  this  card,  order 
the  color  you  want  by  number,  and  we  will  send  you  just  what  you  want. 
Yours,  truly, 

W.  J.  MOXLEY. 

Now,  if  Mr.  Moxley  had  not  anticipated  or  intended  to  suggest  that 
his  customer  should  sell  this  oleomargarine  as  butter,  why  should  he 
suggest  the  ordering  by  color  card  to  correspond  with  the  natural  color 
of  "butter?"  He  might  have  some  claim  to  a  desire  to  furnish  a  color 
suitable  to  a  locality,  but  why  suggest  that  "  the  color  of  butter  is 
lighter  in  winter  than  in  summer?"  Are  we  to  presume  that  the  taste 
of  the  consumer  changes  with  the  "season?" 

Does  not  the  above  circular  show  that  the  object  of  coloring  oleomar- 
garine is  to  imitate  butter  even  to  the  different  seasons,  when  feed  or 
pasture  changes  its  natural  color  ? 

If  the  intention  was  not  to  imitate  butter,  why  mention  butter  at  all  ? 

If  tastes  vary  for  oleomargarine,  why  not  say,  "In  nearly  every  sec- 
tion of  the  country  there  is  a  difference  in  the  color  of  oleomargarine, 
and  even  at  certain  seasons  of  the  year  there  is  a  change,  as  you  will 
have  noticed.  In  winter  oleomargarine  is  a  lighter  color  than  in  sum- 
mer. In  many  sections  this  is  the  result  of  the  difference  in  feed  or 
pasture." 

But  Mr.  Gardner,  representing  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing  Com- 
S.  Rep.  2043 53 


834  OLEOMARGARINE. 

pany,  oleomargarine  makers,  admits,  we  think,  that  oleomargarine 
must  sail  under  butter's  colors,  no  matter  what  they  are,  in  the  fol- 
lowing (p.  4:4:)'. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I  say  that  as  long  as  there  is  in  the  market  something  which  people 
want  and  which  they  have  been  accustomed  to  use  you  can  not  sell  them  something 
which  they  do  not  want  and  which  they  are  not  accustomed  to  use.  Do  not  mis- 
understand me,  please.  If  all  butter  was  left  uncolored  and  if  all  oleomargarine 
was  left  uncolored,  of  course  both  oleomargarine  and  butter  would  sell,  and  they 
would  sell  upon  the  same  plane.  People  would  still  have  something  to  put  on  their 
bread,  although  they  could  not  get  what  they  wanted. 

The  following  colloquy  and  statement  from  pages  204  and  205  will, 
we  believe,  throw  considerable  light  upon  the  subject: 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Have  you  discussed  the  reason  why  the  product  is  colored? 
Why  do  they  not  put  it  on  the  market  in  its  natural  condition? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  That  has  been  discussed  by  others  who  preceded  me,  and  very 
thoroughly,  too. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  If  it  is  in  the  record,  that  is  all  that  is  necessary. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  will  say  that  it  is  simply  conformable  to  the  law  of  custom  and 
taste,  one  of  the  strongest  laws  to  run  up  against. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Do  you  think  anybody  would  buy  it  if  it  was  light  or  white 
colored? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  it  would  be  sold  in  very  limited  quantities. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  understood  from  some  of  your  people  that  they  thought  if 
they  were  compelled  to  color  it  white  it  would  destroy  the  market.  They  have 
written  to  me  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir;  there  is  no  doubt  about  that.  It  would  entirely  destroy 
the  industry  as  an  industry.  An  industry  putting  out  107,000,000  pounds  a  year 
would  be  practically  totally  destroyed,  because  nobody  would  buy  white  oleomarga- 
rine to  put  upon  their  table. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Is  that  mere  prejudice  and  custom? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Solely  that  and  nothing  more,  sir. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  It  seems  to  me  you  might  overcome  that  prejudice? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  You  could  not  overcome  it  so  long  as  butter  is  colored.  So  long 
as  butter  is  put  upon  the  table  yellow,  in  my  judgment,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
sell  white  oleo  as  against  colored  butter.  You  can  sell  white  oleo  against  white 
butter. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  it  destroy  the  butter  business  if  butter  were  not 
colored? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  The  great  hotels,  I  notice,  are  serving  white  butter.  Have  you 
noticed  that? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Without  even  salt  in  it? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir.     I  know  that  is  true  in  some  cases. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  noticed  that  in  a  hotel  in  New  York  the  other  day. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes;  that  is  true,  I  think,  at  the  Waldorf. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  They  do  that,  perhaps,  in  order  to  guarantee  their  good  faith. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  In  response  to  your  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  of  the  opinion 
that  people  would  eat  butter,  that  they  could  not  get  along  without  the  use  of  butter, 
and  that  if  all  butter  was  white  there  would  be  the  same  quantity  of  butter  used  as 
is  used  to-day. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Then  you  think  if  all  butter  was  uncolored  you  could  let  your 
oleo  go  uncolored? 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Why;  certainly. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  would  suggest  a  compromise  with  the  dairyman — throw  away 
all  the  color. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  Yes,  sir;  if  they  will  do  that.  I  noticed  the  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  laugh  when  I  said  that  if  all  butter  was  white  we  could  sell  oleomargarine 
white. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Oh,  well,  you  had  your  laugh  yesterday. 

Mr.  TILLINGHAST.  I  am  going  to  have  it  again.  I  said  that  if  all  butter  was  white 
we  could  sell  oleo  white;  and  that  is  true.  I  will  tell  you  why  it  is  true.  I  am  here 
to  confess  and  to  state  that  oleomargarine,  notwithstanding  it  is  a  distinct  product 
known  to  science,  is  a  product  that  is  used  by  people  who  use  it  for  butter  knowing 
that  it  is  oleomargarine,  and  using  the  substitute  instead  of  the  real  article.  They 
use  it  because  it  is  a  substitute.  You  may  use  the  word  "imitation"  if  you  please, 
and  I  will  agree  with  you.  It  is  an  imitation  of  butter;  and  being  an  imitation  it  is 


OLEOMARGARINE.  835 

sold  as  the  imitation,  and  people  buy  it  because  it  is  an  imitation,  and  they  would 
not  want  it  if  it  was  not  an  imitation.  It  is  an  imitation,  precisely  the  same  as  cotton 
may  imitate  worsted.  People  buy  it  because  it  is  an  imitation,  and  they  know  what 
they  are  buying  and  they  know  what  they  are  using.  Would  you  pass  a  law  here 
that  would  destroy  the  use  of  all  imitations?  Why,  it  is  one  of  my  delightful  recol- 
lections to  think  that  for  25  cents  I  can  buy  a  painting  that  will  imitate  the  finest 
paintings  in  the  world  by  the  finest  masters,  and  I  buy  it  because  it  is  an  imitation. 
It  is  gratifying  to  me  to  know  that  for  25  cents  I  can  buy  a  volume  of  Shakespeare 
that  will  contain  just  as  good  reading  matter  as  the  most  expensive  edition  that  could 
possibly  be  put  out.  Imitations  are  not  to  be  legislated  against.  They  are  proper; 
they  are  legitimate;  they  are  right;  and  the  people  will  have  them  just  as  long  as 
people  live. 

So  that  if  oleomargarine  imitates  butter,  as  it  does,  and  people  buy  it  because  it 
imitates  butter,  and  would  not  buy  it  if  it  did  not  imitate  butter,  then  unless  there 
is  some  reason  other  than  has  been  given  here,  there  should  be  no  legislation  against 
it.  The  only  reason  suggested  is  that  in  some  instances  it  is  sold  for  butter.  I  have 
already  stated  that  that  is  of  too  small  consequence  to  be  considered  by  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  because  is  amounts  to  so  very,  very  little. 

Here  is  an  honest  confession  that  oleomargarine  is  an  imitation  and 
a  claim  that  it  must  imitate  butter  to  be  successfully  sold. 

And  yet  we  contend  that  there  is  a  field  for  a  substitute  that  is  not 
a  counterfeit;  that  oleomargarine  can  be  sold  in  its  natural  color  if  its 
makers  will  spend  the  time  and  money  to  build  up  a  trade  and  reputa- 
tion for  it  instead  of  endeavoring  to  push  it  into  consumption  upon  the 
reputation  of  and  demand  for  butter. 

This,  we  believe,  will  be  proven  by  the  following  statement  by  Hon. 
H.  C.  Adams,  food  commissioner  of  Wisconsin,  on  page  432: 

I  have  here  samples  of  butterine  which  may  interest  this  committee,  and  the 
gentlemen  upon  the  other  side  of  the  question  are  invited  to  inspect  them.  These 
samples  were  obtained  in  obedience  to  my  orders  by  N.  J.  Field,  of  Milwaukee.  He 
was  instructed  by  me  a  week  ago  last  Thursday  to  go  to  the  stores  of  Oshkosh,  Mil- 
waukee, and  Racine,  in  our  State,  and  purchase  samples  of  uncolored  butterine,  and 
to  write  upon  those  samples  the  date  of  purchase;  the  name  of  the  firm  from  whom 
they  \vere  purchased,  and  the  cost.  I  now  have  the  pleasure  of  submitting  these 
samples  to  this  committee  for  their  inspection. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  You  say  he  was  instructed  to  procure  samples  of  uncolored 
butterine? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir;  of  oleomargarine.  I  would  like  to  say  that  one  or  two  of 
these  samples,  possibly  more,  are  slightly  colored,  but  they  were  purchased  for 
uncolored  oleomargarine. 

Mr.  JELKE.  If  the  chairman  will  permit  me,  I  would  like  to  make  a  suggestion 
that  these  samples  be  submitted  to  the  Government  chemist  to  find  out  whether  or 
not  they  contain  artificial  coloring,  and  also  to  report  on  whether  they  contain  any 
unwholesome  ingredient.  I  do  not  know  where  they  come  from,  or  anything  about  it. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  think  that  ought  to  be  done. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  I  shall  direct  the  clerk  of  the  committee  to  take  care  of 
these  samples  after  they  have  been  exhibited,  and  send  them  to  the  chemist  at  the 
Agricultural  Department  for  examination. 

Mr.  JELKE.  May  I  suggest  that  the  analysis  be  made  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain- 
ing the  percentage  of  butter  fats  in  each  one,  as  well  as  the  color  and  what  kind  of 
color. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Yes;  he  will  be  directed  to  make  a  thorough  analysis. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  wish  to  say,  gentlemen,  that  all  these  samples,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  this  one,  werejsold  by  the  dealer  in  response  to  a  call  for  uncolored  but- 
terine, they  claiming  that  they  had  received  it  from  the  manufacturers  as  uncolored 
butterine. 

Mr.  JELKE.  The  test  will  show  that. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  now  wish  to  present  to  the  committee  and  have  incorporated  in  the 
testimony  the  bill  for  this.  It  is  as  follows: 

WILLIAM  J.  MOXLEY, 
MANUFACTURER  OP  FINE  BUTTERINE,  66  AND  67  W.  MONROE  STREET, 

Chicago,  January  25,  1900. 
W.  R.  WRIGHT  &  Co., 

4845  N.  Clark  street,  Rogers  Park,  III. 

Uncolored  oleomargarine:  2 / 56  D.  2  pts.  112  13,  $14.56. 


836  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  HANSBROUGH.  Did  all  this  come  under  an  order  for  tincolored  goods? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  These  all  came  under  an  order  from  my  inspector,  Mr.  N.  J.  Field,  to 
Jensen  &  Beck,  Racine;  Hanley  Brothers,  Racine;  D.  0.  Adams,  Milwaukee;  J. 
Linehan,  Milwaukee,  and  Hoenig  &  Co.,  Oahkosh.  He  purchased  samples  of 
uncolored  butterine  for  the  purpose  of  demonstrating  the  fact  that  some  of  the  grocers 
of  our  State  think  they  are  endeavoring  to  comply  with  the  law,  and  some  of  them 
are  endeavoring  to  comply  with  the  law,  and  some  of  them  sell  oleomargarine 
uncolored. 

******* 

The  figures  given  to  me  or  to  my  assistant  by  gentlemen  connected  with  the  firms 
which  have  been  cited  here  as  to  their  sales  of  what  they  call  uncolored  butterine,  a 
portion  of  which  is  evidently  uncolored  butterine,  and  a  portion  of  which  is  faintly 
colored,  possibly,  and  possibly  not — that  is  to  be  determined  by  a  chemist — are: 
Jensen  &  Beck,  3,000  pounds  a  year;  Hanley  Brothers,  3,000  pounds  a  year;  D.  C. 
Adams,  Milwaukee,  19,000  pounds  a  year;  L.  Linehan,  5,000  pounds  a  year,  and 
Hoenig  &  Co.,  of  Oshkosh,  6,000  pounds  a  year.  These  are  approximate  figures. 
Perhaps  D.  C.  Adams,  of  Milwaukee,  who  said  he  sold  60  pounds  a  day,  sells  more 
or  less  than  the  figures  I  have  given.  Sixty  pounds  a  day  during  six  days  of  the 
week,  calling  320  days  to  the  year,  would  amount  to  about  19,000  pounds. 

The  following,  in  this  connection,  is  interesting,  as  printed  on  page 
531: 

Mr.  JELKE.  Would  you  want  to  eat  uncolored  oleomargarine  on  your  table? 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  No;  I  have  a  constitutional  prejudice  against  it,  I  must  confess. 

Mr.  JELKE.  Would  you  want  to  eat  white  butter? 

Senator  DOLLIVEK.  Oh,  yes;  I  have  eaten  it  the  year  round,  and  in  youth  I  churned 
it.  As  Senator  Allen  says,  everybody  eats  white  butter  on  the  farm. 

Mr.  JELKE.  As  soon  as  that  butter  is  shipped  to  the  city  it  is  colored. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  am  talking  about  my  own  taste. 

Mr.  SCHELL.  The  wholesale  dealers  in  Cincinnati  have  tried  to  put  white  oleomar- 
garine on  the  market,  but  have  reported  to  me  that  it  was  absolutely  impossible  to 
do  it.  Mr.  Seither,  who  claims  to  be,  and  I  believe  is,  the  oldest  man  in  that  busi- 
ness in  this  country,  tells  me  he  has  tried  it  from  time  to  time,  but  it  is  utterly 
impossible;  that  the  people  will  not  take  it.  He  has  not  told  me  the  reason  why, 
but  I  think  one  of  the  principal  reasons  is  the  fact  that  there  is  an  unwarranted 
sentiment  attached  to  it,  an  unwarranted  prejudice  against  it,  and  people  do  not 
want  to  put  it  on  their  tables  for  the  criticism  of  their  neighbors.  You  know  how  a 
neighboring  woman  will  say:  "Mrs.  Smith  uses  oleo,n  etc. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Is  not  this  the  fact:  That  the  man  does  not  want  to  put  oleomar- 
garine on  his  table  knowingly,  because  of  his  natural  inclination  for  butter? 

Mr.  SCHELL:  No;  I  think  not.     *    *    * 

Now,  as  to  the  fairness  of  coloring  butter  and  not  coloring  oleomar- 
garine. There  were  a  number  of  interesting  discussions.  The  fol- 
lowing is  reported  on  page  127: 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  Would  it  be  a  fair  proposition  to  ask  the  manufacturers  of  cream- 
ery butter  to  leave  the  color  out  of  their  butter? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  No,  sir;  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  In  the  first  place,  that  is  the 
natural  color  of  the  butter,  if  they  color  it  as  they  ought  to  color  it.  Butter  is  yellow 
when  the  cows  feed  upon  nature's  succulent  food.  Color  in  butter  is  for  the  purpose 
of  uniformity. 

Mr.  MATHEWSON.  It  brings  a  little  more  on  the  market. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  Not  at  all.  I  ate  butter  in  New  York  City  the  other  day  with  all 
the  flavoring  you  could  ask,  and  not  one  bit  of  coloring  and  not  a  bit  of  salt  in  it. 
I  ate  to-day  down  at  the  hotel  cheese  with  not  one  bit  of  coloring  matter  in  it,  and  I 
liked  it  just  as  well.  The  truth  is  that  the  people,  if  your  commodity  is  good,  can 
be  educated  to  eat  it  without  its  coloring  matter,  and  you  will  not  deceive  them  as 
to  the  commodity. 

On  page  421  Secretary  Wilson  says: 

There  is  no  difficulty  about  having  naturally  colored  butter.  It  is  colored  by  the 
grass  in  summer.  That  is  nature's  way,  and  when  you  imitate  nature  you  are  prob- 
ably not  going  very  far  wrong;  but  we  do  not  know  enough  about  milk,  any  of  us 
yet,  to  be  able  to  form  a  substitute  that  will  stay  on  the  stomach  the  same  as  butter. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  83  7 

And  on  page  11  Governor  Hoard  brings  out  a  point,  as  follows : 

I  had  a  distinguished  member  of  the  other  House  ask  me  if  butter  was  not  colored 
in  winter  to  make  the  consumer  believe  that  it  was  made  last  June.  That  gentle- 
man was  a  student  of  maxims,  not  of  markets.  The  cheapest  and  poorest  butter  in 
winter  is  that  made  last  June.  The  highest-priced  butter  is  that  which  is  not  over 
ten  days  old  and  faultless  in  character  and  flavor. 

A  very  complete  statement  was  made  on  page  525,  the  most  inter- 
esting part  of  which  follows: 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  will  say  in  that  connection  that  I  have  been  in  the  butter  trade  for 
twelve  years,  and  I  have  never  heard  that  the  color  of  butter  was  indicative  of  its 
quality,  so  far  as  its  wholesomeness  is  concerned.  Senator  Dolliver  has  had  experi- 
ence in  New  York  to  the  effect  that  at  the  Waldorf-Astoria  they  serve  you  with  but- 
ter perfectly  white.  I  was  in  England  for  the  Agricultural  Department  investigating 
butter  in  that  country,  and  they  served  me  there  with  white  butter  all  the  time  I 
was  there,  and  I  never  heard  anybody  complain  because  it  was  white. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Why  do  they  ever  want  to  have  the  color  in  it? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  average  natural  color  of  butter  is  two-thirds  normal.  You  take 
our  dairies  throughout  the  United  States,  and  one  cold  wave  or  storm  will  change 
the  color  of  the  butter.  One  cold  wave  that  will  drive  the  cows  from  feeding  on  the 
green  pastures  to  feeding  on  hay  or  any  kind  of  green  food  will  make  the  butter 
white  this  week  which  last  week  was  yellow.  That  is  true  of  any  place. 

The  tendency  of  all  commerce  is  toward  uniformity  in  everything.  Butter  is  put 
up  in  packages  or  in  tubs.  Everybody  puts  up  everything  with  this  idea  of  uniformity 
in  view.  That  is  what  the  public  demands.  It 'does  not  make  any  difference  in 
what  shape  the  packages  are,  but  all  the  packages  must  be  uniform  in  order  to  be 
merchantable.  So  with  butter.  Butter  must  be  uniform  in  packages,  uniform  in 
body,  uniform  in  the  amount  of  salt,  uniform  in  flavor,  uniform  in  color.  The 
weather  conditions  may  be  such  that  one  day  will  make  white  butter  and  another 
day  will  make  yellow  butter.  I  tell  you  that  it  is  necessary  that  we  do  some- 
thing to  keep  the  color  uniform.  When  I  tell  you  that,  I  am  telling  you  what  I 
know.  I  say  to-day  that  it  would  be  better  for  the  butter  trade  if  butter  could  be 
made  white  uniformly  and  all  the  time,  rather  than  yellow  part  of  the  time  and  white 
part  of  the  time.  The  consumers  would  soon  become  used  to  that  uniformity.  But 
we  can  not  accomplish  that.  In  the  winter  time  butter  is  white  all  the  time  if  the 
color  is  kept  put  of  it.  If  oleomargarine  were  white,  where  would  our  distinction 
be?  In  this  bill  we  seek  a  distinction  between  the  two  articles. 

If  a  bill  could  be  passed  that  would  cause  the  color  to  be  kept  out  of  butter  and 
oleomargarine  in  the  winter  time,  then  the  oleomargarine  men  would  go  to  their 
retailers  and  tell  them,  "You  know  there  was  a  law  passed  at  the  last  Congress  which 
practically  forbids  coloring  butter."  Where  would  the  value  of  the  law  be  that 
would  bring  the  two  articles  down  to  the  same  basis  as  regards  color?  It  is  true  that 
would  be  an  advantage  in  the  summer  time,  when  butter  is  cheap,  and  they  have  no 
market  for  oleo  to  amount  to  anything  then.  But  when  it  came  to  the  winter  time 
the  color  might  be  taken  out,  and  the  two  articles  standing  side  by  side  would  show 
the  same  color,  and  then  fraud  would  be  practiced  just  the  same.  Every  man  who 
wanted  to  sell  oleomargarine  for  butter  would  convince  the  consumer  that  it  was 
natural  butter,  and  would  tell  him  that  color  had  been  forbidden  by  law,  and  that 
butter  is  white  in  winter. 

And  the  following  discussion  between  Senator  Money  and  Secretary 
Wilson  is  instructive: 

Senator  MONEY.  I  never  know  that  I  have  got  the  genuine  article  except  when  I 
go  home. 

Secretary  WILSON.  After  living  a  winter  in  Washington  and  eating  bogus  butter 
our  taste  becomes  vitiated.  Some  of  the  first-class  hotels  and  first-class  restaurants 
here  do  get  first-class  butter  from  reputable  dealers,  but  the  majority  of  them  use 
oleomargarine. 

Senator  MONEY.  If  we  are  all  eating  bogus  butter  and  we  can  not  tell  it  by  the 
taste,  and  we  can  not  tell  it  by  the  color,  and  we  can  not  tell  it  by  the  effect,  what 
harm  has  happened  to  anybody? 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  bogus  butter  deceives  you  in  your  pocketbook.  It  costs 
you  far  more  than  it  should.  There  is  where  the  trouble  comes.  It  costs  you  too 
much. 

Senator  MONEY..  Would  I  get  the  fine-grade  butter  any  cheaper  if  we  abolish  oleo- 
margarine? 


838  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Secretary  WILSON.  If  you  abolish  the  coloring  proposition.  I  would  not  abolish 
oleomargarine.  The  manufacture  of  that  is  legitimate,  but  the  moment  you  buy  it 
you^re  deceived  by  somebody.  We  are  not  the  men  who  select  the  butter  that  we 
eat  if  we  board  at  a  hotel  or  boarding  house,  and  the  boarding-house  man  can 
deceive  us,  and  he  does. 

In  Twelfth  Missouri  Appeals  appears  the  following  in  relation  to 
the  coloring  of  oleomargarine  to  imitate  butter: 

The  mere  fact  that  experts  may  pronounce  an  article  intended  for  human  food  to 
be  harmless  does  not  render  it  incompetent  for  the  legislature  to  prohibit  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  the  article.  The  test  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  police  regula- 
tion prohibiting  the  making  and  vending  of  a  particular  article  of  food  is  not  alone 
whether  it  is  in  part  unwholesome  and  injurious.  If  an  article  of  ^food  is  of  such^a 
character  that  few  persons  will  eat  it,  knowing  its  real  character,  if  at  the  time  it  is 
of  such  a  nature  that  it  can  be  imposed  upon  the  public  as  an  article  of  food  which 
it  is  not,  and  yet  to  which  and  against  which  there  is  no  protest,  and  if  in  addition  to 
this  there  is  probable  ground  for  believing  that  the  only  way  to  prevent  the  public 
from  being  defrauded  into  the  purchasing  of  the  counterfeit  article  for  the  genuine 
is  to  prohibit  altogether  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  the  former,  then  we  think  that 
such  a  prohibition  may  stand  as  a  reasonable  police  regulation,  although  the  article 
prohibited  is  indeed  innocuous,  and  although  its  production  might  be  found  bene- 
ficial to  the  public  if  in  buying  it  they  could  distinguish  it  from  the  production  of 
which  it  is  an  imitation. 

******* 

The  manufacturer  may  brand  it  with  its  real  name.  It  may  carry  that  brand  with 
it  into  the  hands  of  the  broker  and  commission  merchant  and  even  into  the  hands 
of  the  retail  grocer,  but  there  it  will  be  taken  off  and  it  will  be  sold  to  the  consumer 
as  real  butter  or  it  will  not  be  sold  at  all.  The  fact  that  the  present  state  of  the 
public  taste,  the  public  judgment,  or  the  public  prejudice  with  regard  to  it  is  such 
that  it  can  not  be  sold  except  by  cheating  the  ultimate  purchaser  into  the  belief 
that  it  is  the  real  butter  stamps  with  fraud  the  entire  business  of  making  and  vend- 
ing it  and  furnishes  a  justification  for  the  police  regulation  prohibiting  the  making 
and  vending  of  it  altogether. 

And  when  asked  why  color  butter  in  winter  and  not  oleomargarine, 
Secretary  Wilson  said  (page  419): 

I  have  had  that  question  asked  me  before  and  have  thought  a  great  deal  about  it. 
The  reply  is  simply  this:  The  coloring  of  butter  in  the  winter  time  deceives  nobody. 
The  coloring  of  the  fats  of  commerce  to  make  an  imitation  deceives  everybody. 

THE   LIVE-STOCK   QUESTION. 

The  most  active,  aggressive  opponents  of  the  Grout  bill  have  been 
the  live-stock  organizations. 

A  little  idea  of  the  cause  for  their  aggressiveness  may  be  had  from 
a  review  of  the  statements  made  before  the  committee  by  their  repre- 
sentatives, or  through  them. 

The  basis  of  the  opposition  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Association, 
represented  by  Judge  Springer,  before  the  committee,  is  shown  in 
the  resolution  he  presents  from  his  association,  which  contains  the 
following  (page  78  printed  testimony) : 

The  "butter  fat"  of  an  average  beef  animal,  for  the  purpose  of  making  oleomarga- 
rine, is  worth  from  $3  to  $4  per  head  more  than  it  was  before  the  advent  of  oleomar- 
garine, when  the  same  had  to  be  used  for  tallow;  which  increased  value  of  the  beef 
steer  has  been  added  to  the  market  value  of  the  animal,  and  consequently  to  the 
profit  of  the  producer. 

To  legislate  this  article  of  commerce  out  of  existence,  as  the  passage  of  this  law 
would  surely  do,  would  compel  slaughterers  to  use  this  fat  for  tallow,  and  depreciate 
the  market  value  of  the  beef  cattle  of  this  country  $3  to  $4  per  head,  which  would 
entail  a  loss  on  the  producers  of  this  country  of  millions  of  dollars. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  839 

At  the  conclusion  of  Judge  Springer's  argument,  as  shown  on  pages 
and  115,  the  following  colloquy  occurred: 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  If  any  gentleman  desires  to  ask  questions,  I  will  be  very  glad  to 
answer  as  I  may  be  able. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  have  not  stated  what  the  objections  of  the  live-stock  growers  are 
to  the  bill. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Those  were  stated 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  In  the  resolution? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  In  the  memorial  which  will  be  printed. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  will  be  printed. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  read  a  portion  of  it.  I  have  asked  the  committee  to  embody  it  at 
length,  but  I  will  briefly  state  the  objections.  They  object  to  it  because  it  deprives 
them  of  a  market  for  one  of  their  products.  In  other  words,  the  product  of  beef 
known  as  caul  fat,  which  amounts  in  the  average  beef  to  about  58  pounds  per  steer, 
is  now  or  may  be  manufactured  into  oleo  oil,  and  if  the  whole  product  were  so  manu- 
factured there  would  be  a  large  amount — in  fact,  nearly  all  of  it — used  for  that  pur- 
pose, thus  increasing  the  value  of  the  caul  fat  in  the  steer  to  the  amount  of  the  differ- 
ence between  oleo  oil  and  tallow. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Does  that  include  kidney  fat? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  includes  all  that  is  known  as  caul  fat  I  am  not  an  expert  as  to 
the  various  fats. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Your  objection,  then,  is  not  so  much  to  what  it  will  do  to  the  live- 
stock industry  as  to  what  it  will  deprive  the  live-stock  industry  of  some  tune  in  the 
future? 

******* 

Mr.  GROUT.  Are  you  able  to  state  the  number  of  pounds  of  oleo  oil  that  was  used 
in  the  production  of  oleomargarine  last  year? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sn\ 

Mr.  GROUT.  Will  you  give  it? 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  He  will  publish  that  statement. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  is  24,400,000  pounds. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  The  table  gives  the  ' '  quantities  and  kinds  of  ingredients  used  in  the 
production  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United  State's  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1899;  also  the  percentage  each  different  ingredient  bears  to  the  whole  quantity." 
Neutral  lard,  31,000,000  pounds;  oleo  oil,  24,000,000  pounds;  cotton-seed  oil,  4,357,000 
pounds. 

Mr.  GROUT.  What  is  the  amount  we  exported? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  We  exported  142,000,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil,  I  think.  That  is  not 
taken  into  consideration  in  the  amount  that  was  used  in  this  country. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  But  in  the  resolution  of  the  live-stock  association  is  it  not  stated  that 
the  passage  of  the  Grout  bill  would  mean  a  damage  or  loss  in  value  of  $3  or  $4  a  head 
per  cattle? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  so  stated,  I  think. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  How  do  you  figure  that,  please? 

Senator  HEITFELD.  Was  it  not  $2  in  the  statement  made  here? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  From  $2  to  $4  in  some  statements. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  They  say  in  their  memorial: 

"In  oleomargarine  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  consumers  of  this  country,  espe- 
cially the  working  classes,  have  a  wholesome,  nutritious,  and  satisfactory  article  of 
diet/  which  before  its  advent  they  wore  obliged,  owing  to  the  high  price  of  butter 
and  their  limited  means,  to  go  without. 

' '  The  '  butter  fat '  of  an  average  beef  animal,  for  the  purpose  of  making  oleomar- 
garine, is  worth  from  $3  to  |4  per  head  more  than  it  was  before  the  advent  of  oleo- 
margarine, when  the  same  had  to  be  used  for  tallow,  which  increased  value  of  the 
beef  steer  has  been  added  to  the  market  value  of  the  animal,  and  consequently  to  the 
profit  of  the  producer. 

"To  legislate  this  article  of  commerce  out  of  existence,  as  the  passage  of  this  law 
would  surely  do,  would  compel  slaughterers  to  use  this  fat  for  tallow,  and  depreciate 
the  market  value  of  the  beef  cattle  of  this  country  $3  to  $4  per  head,  which  would 
entail  a  loss  on  the  producers  of  this  country  of  millions  of  dollars." 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  amount  of  oleo  oil  used  was  24,000,000  pounds? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Valued  last  year  at  about  $2,000,000? 

Mr.  SPRINGER,  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  were  5,000,000  head  of  cattle  slaughtered  in  this  country  last 
year. 


840  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  If  you  took  that  amount  out  of  the  use  to  which  it  was  formerly 
put,  would  not  that  make  a  difference? 

Mr.  HOARD.  The  Treasury  Department  shows  that  there  was  used  of  oleo  oil  in 
oleomargarine  produced  in 'this  country  24,000,000  pounds.  That  is  a  fraction  less 
than  5  pounds  of  fat  from  each  animal. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  It  takes  that  5  out  of  the  gross  product. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  is  4.99  pounds  to  each  animal.  At  their  figures  it  would  be  worth 
about  $1  a  pound. 

Mr.  GROUT.  What  is  the  price  of  it? 

Mr.  HOARD.  Nine  cents. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  In  what  way  would  it? 

Mr.  HOARD.  Because  there  are  5,000,000  animals  slaughtered  and  24,000,000  pounds 
of  oleo  oil  used.  Divide  one  by  the  other,  and  it  makes  4.99  pounds  to  each  animal; 
45  cents  a  pound. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  I  do  not  think  that  is  a  fair  estimate. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  will  make  this  explanation. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  am  taking  the  amount  that  would  be  used  in  oleomargarine. 

Senator  HEITFELD.  But  you  are  figuring  the  24,000,000  pounds  as  the  entire  output 
from  the  beef,  and  the  only  output  that  is  bringing  any  money,  throwing  away  the 
other  95  per  cent. 

Mr.  HOARD.  I  am  figuring  as  to  relationship  and  the  worth  of  the  oleo  oil,  and  it 
does  not  square  with  that  live-stock  statement. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  will  answer  that. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  is  overestimated. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Knight,  in  his  statement  before  the  committee  of  the  House 
(pp.  26  and  27  of  the  House  hearing),  endeavored  to  expose  the  figures  used  by 
Swift  &  Co.  in  regard  to  this  subject.  I  did  not  prepare  those  figures,  and  I  do  not 
know  who  did,  but  it  appears  to  me  from  an  examination  of  both  of  those  statements 
that  the  gentlemen  and  those  who  prepared  these  estimates  are  both  out  of  the  way 
in  their  estimates  upon  this  subject.  In  other  words,  they  have,  by  a  loose  manner 
of  expression,  failed  to  state  exactly  what  the  truth  is  and  what  the  difference  would 
be.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  proper  statement  is  this:  We  must  go  for  the  amount  of 
oleo  oil  that  was  consumed  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  to  the  Treasury  sta- 
tistics in  order  to  ascertain  the  exact  truth.  That  does  not  embrace  the  amount  of 
oleo  oil  exported,  and  a  great  deal  more  is  used  for  export  than  is  used  in  this 
country. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  has  this  to  do  with  the  oleo  oil  that  is  exported? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Nothing,  except  that  the  use  of  oleo  throughout  the  world  has 
created  a  demand  for  it,  and  a  portion  of  that  demand  is  in  this  country.  Now,  if 
all  of  the  caul  fat  in  the  beeves  that  were  slaughtered  during  the  year  had  been 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  this  country  it  would  have  amounted 
to  the  figures  stated  by  Mr.  Swift  in  his  circular,  which  are  practically  the  ones 
stated  in  the  resolution  and  memorial  of  the  cattle  men. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Is  there  anything  in  the  Swift  letter  to  Congress  indicating  that  it 
was  not? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  say  that  I  think  he  was  mistaken  in  placing  it  upon  that  basis; 
but  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that  it  is  beyond  the 
power  of  man  to  tell  what  would  be  the  loss  to  the  cattle  men  of  this  country  by 
reason  of  the  destruction  of  oleomargarine  as  an  article  of  commerce. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  is  beyond  the  power  of  man  to  tell  what  the  destruction  to  the 
butter  industry  is  by  this  business. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  You  can  guess  at  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Now,  Judge 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Let  me  finish.  You  can  not  tell.  Why?  There  was  already 
created,  by  the  amount  of  oleo  oil  used  in  the  actual  production  of  oleomargarine  in 
this  country,  a  demand  for  24,000,000  pounds  of  their  product  which  would  not  have 
existed  if  oleomargarine  had  not  been  manufactured  in  this  country.  To  that  much 
we  will  all  agree. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  There  is  that  much  increased  demand  for  their  stock. 

Mr.  HOARD.  With  a  corresponding  destruction  on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Excuse  me  for  one  moment.  There  is  that  large  increase.  Now, 
gentlemen,  how  can  you  tell  what  effect  that  increased  demand  for  the  24,000,000 
pounds  had  upon  the  price  of  all  the  other  products  of  animal  fats?  Who  can  tell 
that?  Nobody  can  tell.  But  it  is  my  opinion  that  the  pending  bill  and  the  restric- 
tive laws  in  32  States  in  this  Union  will  injure  the  cattle  and  hog  industry  to  the 
extent  of  many  millions  of  dollars  annually,  and  that  injury  will  reach  the  extent 
Ftated  in  the  memorial  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Association. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  841 

And  on  page  118  Judge  Springer  says: 

While  I  can  not  say,  and  no  other  man  can  say,  just  how  much  the  price  of  cattle 
would  be  depreciated  by  destroying  this  industry,  or  how  much  it  would  be  appre- 
ciated by  repealing  the  restrictive  State  laws  and  letting  oleomargarine  go  free,  as 
other  food  products  do,  vet  I  know  it  would  depreciate  animal  fats  in  the  one  case, 
and  it  would  appreciate  in  the  other  very  largely  if  this  article  should  be  left  in  the 
same  condition  that  other  food  products  are  left. 

Hon.  James  Wilson,  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  answered  questions 
as  follows,  on  page  418,  upon  the  subject  of  damage  to  live-stock 
interests: 

Senator  ALLEN.  Have  you  inquired  into  the  effect  the  passage  of  this  bill  will  have 
upon  the  value  of  animals  raised  for  food  purposes;  not  for  dairy  purposes? 

Secretary  WILSON.  Very  carefully. 

Senator  ALLEN.  What  will  be  the  effect  of  the  passage  of  this  bill  on  that  class  of 
animals? 

Secretary  WILSON.  I  tried  to  reason  that  in  my  short  paper  which  I  have  read. 
There  is  a  little  oil  furnished  by  cotton-seed  people,  and  a  little  by  the  people  who 
grow  steers;  but  the  old-fashioned  steer  that  had  lots  of  fat  in  him  is  not  the  steer 
that  is  used  to-day.  The  young  beef,  under  2  years  of  age,  put  into  the  market  and 
prepared  for  the  shambles,  is  not  an  animal  that  produces  much  body  or  intestinal 
fat.  That  is  the  animal  that  is  wanted  to-day. 

The  old-fashioned  steer  that  was  3£  years  old  before  he  got  to  market  had  a  large 
amount  of  fat,  running  up  in  some  cases  to  150  and  as  high  as  180  pounds. 

Now,  then,  the  tendency  in  the  South,  where  they  have  destroyed  the  lands  by  per- 
petual cropping,  and  the  tendency  west  of  the  Missouri,  in  the  semidry  belt,  where 
they  are  destroying  the  grazing  lands  by  injudicious  overgrazing,  is  to  take  greater 
interest  in  the  dairy  cow  than  In  the  steer,  and  in  the  case  of  settlers  who  want  to 
raise  families  out  west  of  the  one  hundredth  meridian  the  interest  grows  every  day 
on  behalf  of  the  dairy  cow,  and  with  regard  to  the  production  of  steers  east  of  the 
Missouri  River  on  the  farms  there  is  no  comparison  whatever.  The  small  amount  oi 
fat  from  cattle  that  commerce  calls  for  in  making  oleomargarine  is  infinitesimal  in 
value  compared  with  the  injury  that  the  growth  of  this  bogus  industry  will  inflict 
upon  legitimate  agriculture  that  requires  a  dairy  cow. 

And  the  following  is  an  excerpt  from  the  printed  testimony  on 
page  425: 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  received  a  telegram  from  a  cattle  dealer  in  Iowa  stating  that 
this  bill  was  likely  to  very  greatly  damage  the  value  of  beef  cattle. 

Secretary  WILSON.  Yes;  he  does  not  know  what  he  is  talking  about,  that  same 
cattle  dealer. 

The  following  representations  are  made  by  the  National  Live  Stock 
Exchange,  as  shown  on  page  185: 

The  "butter  fat"  of  an  average  beef  animal  for  the  purpose  of  making  butterine  is 
worth  $3  per  head  more  than  it  was  before  the  advent  of  butterine,  when  the  same 
had  to  be  used  for  tallow,  which  increased  value  of  the  beef  steer  has  been  added  to 
the  market  value  of  the  animal,  and  consequently  to  the  profit  of  the  producer. 

And  by  the  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchage  (page  72) : 

That  the  bill  above  referred  to,  if  it  become  a  law,  will  reduce  the  value,  to  the 
farmers  and  raisers  of  cattle,  an  average  of  $4  per  head  and  a  corresponding  decrease 
in  the  value  of  hogs. 

The  basis  of  the  Kansas  City  Commercial  Club's  opposition  to  the 
Grout  bill  is  shown  on  page  62  to  be  the  following: 

This  measure,  if  passed,  will  build  up  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  tearing  down 
and  ruining  another  industry,  and  will  in  effect  amount  to  the  giving  of  a  monopoly 
to  the  industry  sought  to  be  benefited  by  such  legislation;  that  the  bill  above  referred 
to,  if  it  becomes  a  law,  will  reduce  the  value  to  the  farmers  and  raisers  of  cattle  an 
average  of  $2  per  head  and  a  corresponding  decrease  in  the  value  of  hogs. 


842  OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  South  St.  Paul  Live  Stock  Exchange  objects  to  the  measure 
on  the  following  grounds,  as  shown  by  resolutions  printed  on  page  57: 

The  butter  fat  of  an  average  beef  animal  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  oleo- 
margarine is  worth  from  $3  to  $4  per  head  more  than  before  the  advent  of  oleomar- 
garine. This  has  increased  the  value  of  the  beef  steer,  and  consequently  to  the  profit 
of  the  producer. 

To  legislate  this  article  of  commerce  out  of  existence,  as  the  passage  of  this  law 
would  surely  do,  would  compel  slaughterers  to  use  this  fat  for  tallow  and  depreciate 
the  market  value  of  beef  cattle  of  this  country  $3  to  $4  per  head,  which  would  entail 
a  loss  on  the  producer  of  this  country  of  millions  and  millions  of  dollars. 

And  yet  nobody  has  been  able  to  successfully  dispute  the  statement 
made  by  Hon.  S.  C.  Bassett,  president  of  the  board  of  agriculture  of 
Nebraska,  given  on  page  451,  in  which  he  gives  facts  and  figures  show- 
ing the  fears  of  the  live  stock  men  and  their  opposition  is  without 
foundation.  The  statement  follows: 

The  National  Live  Stock  Association  has  adopted  resolutions  opposing  the  passage 
of  this  measure,  and  a  representative  of  the  association  has  appeared  before  this  com- 
mittee and  attempted  to  show  by  statistics  and  otherwise  that  this  proposed  law 
would  very  materially  lessen  the  value  of  all  live  stock  marketed. 

On  December  17  last,  by  means  of  the  Associated  Press  dispatches,  there  was  broad- 
casted over  the  country  the  following  statement,  purporting  to  come  from  Mr.  John 
W.  Springer,  president  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Association.  It  is  dated  at  Den- 
ver, Colo.,  and  is  as  follows: 

"The  stockmen  of  the  West  are  all  interested  in  this  bill,"  said  Mr.  Springer  to-day, 
"and  so  are  all  manufacturers.  If  such  a  measure  as  this  can  become  law  no  indus- 
try in  the  country  is  safe.  If  it  should  become  a  law  and  take  effect  it  means  simply 
that  the  stockmen  of  the  West  will  lose  from  $3  to  $4  on  every  iteer  they  market. 
We  also  claim  that  the  only  people  directly  interested  in  the  passage  of  this  law  ia 
the  butter  trust." 

A  neighbor  of  mine  who  annually  feeds  large  numbers  of  cattle  for  market,  after 
reading  this  statement,  said  to  me:  "If  that  statement  be  true  I  certainly  am  opposed 
to  your  Grout  bill." 

Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  as  I  understand  this  matter,  this  statement  is  not 
true,  and  neither  by  statistics  nor  otherwise  can  it  be  shown  to  be  true.  Statistics 
published  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1899,  show  that  at  41  packing  centers  the  number  of  cattle  inspected  before 
slaughter  was  4,654,842.  Outside  of  those  inspected  by  the  Department  it  is  esti- 
mated that  enough  more  were  slaughtered  to  make  the  aggregate  number  slaughtered 
for  the  year,  5,000,000  head. 

The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  to  Congress  in 
May  last  shows  that  in  all  the  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine  manufactured  in 
this  country  last  year  there  were  but  24,491,769  pounds  of  oleo  oil  used.  This  at  9 
cents  per  pound  has  a  value  of  $2,204,259,  which  sum  divided  among  the  5,000,000 
head  of  cattle  who  produced  this  oleo  oil  makes  an  average  of  44  cents  per  head. 

In  some  cases  this  product  is  priced  at  10  cents  per  pound,  but  I  think  that  is  unjust 
from  a  producer's  standpoint,  for  the  reason  that  at  10  cents  a  pound  oleo  oil  is  a 
manufactured  product  into  which  labor,  etc.,  goes,  and  on  which  profit  is  realized, 
but  the  man  who  markets  the  cattle  does  not  receive  10  cents  a  pound  for  it,  and  I 
have  used  the  figure  9  cents,  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  a  proper  estimate.  No  one 
believes  or  for  a  moment  seriously  contends  that  if  this  oleo  product  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  could  not  be  so  used  it  would  be  a  total  loss,  and  lessen 
by  the  sum  of  44  cents  the  average  amount  received  by  the  owners  of  cattle  for  each 
animal  sold  for  slaughter.  But  suppose  it  needs  be  sold  at  the  price  of  other  fats  -5 
cents  per  pound — it  would  mean  a  mere  nominal  loss  of  20  cents  on  each  animal  sold 
for  slaughter,  which  sum  every  owner  of  live  stock  well  knows  is  hardly  given  a 
thought  when  his  stock  is  being  disposed  of  for  slaughter  at  packing  centers. 

Mr.  Bassett  also  showed  (p.  452)  that  of  the  43,891,814  head  of  cat- 
tle owned  in  this  country  28,825,933  were  owned  in  the  States  pro- 
hibiting the  sale  of  yellow  oleomargarine,  while  but  15,065,881  were 
owned  where  its  sale  is  permitted. 

And  in  closing  Mr.  Bassett  said  (p.  453): 

I  do  not  wish  to  discredit  the  National  Live  Stock  Association  before  this  commit- 
tee, but  in  its  appearance  here  it  does  not  represent  either  the  wishes  or  sentiments  of 


OLEOMARGARINE.  843 

the  very  large  majority  of  the  farmers  and  stock  raisers  of  my  State.  It  undoubt- 
edly does  represent  the  sentiment  of  the  packers,  commission  men,  owners  of  live 
stock  on  the  ranges,  and  like  interests,  but  it  does  not  represent  the  sentiment  of 
our  farmers  and  dairymen  who  are  by  far  the  largest  raisers  and  owners  of  live  stock. 

When  I  say  "owners  of  live  stock  on  ranges,"  I  have  reference  to  that  class  of 
men  who  own  large  interests  in  live  stock. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Large  herds? 

Mr.  BASSETT.  Large  herds,  yes;  and  those  men  do  not  do  much  in  a  dairy  way.  I 
have  reference  to  men  who  own  comparatively  small  herds  of  cattle. 

In  view  of  the  statement  made  by  Judge  Springer,  on  page  114, 
which  would  lead  one  to  believe  that  58  pounds  of  oleo  oil  came  out  of 
every  steer,  as  there  was  that  amount  of  caul  fat  therein,  attention  is 
called  to  the  following  discussion,  which  appears  on  page  559: 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Now,  there  is  another  matter  that  has  been  in  question  here.  Mr. 
Miller  made  the  statement  to  you  that  some  40  or  50  pounds  of  oleo  oil  came  from  the 
caul  fat  of  a  steer.  I  have  here  Iowa  Agricultural  Bulletin  No.  20,  showing  the  weight 
of  18  fatted  steers  fed  at  that  station,  and  the  amount  of  caul  fat  therein,  as  taken 
out  by  Swift  &  Co.,  of  Chicago,  and  reported  to  Director  James  Wilson,  now  Secre- 
tary of  Agriculture.  That  bulletin  shows  that  the  average  amount  of  caul  fat  in 
steers  weighing  on  an  average  1,508  pounds  was  37.66  pounds.  The  statement  made 
before  the  Agricultural  Committee  of  the  Senate 

Senator  ALLEN.  That  is  a  pretty  good  steer. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  The  statement  made  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Agriculture  in 
1886  by  Elmer  E.  Washburn,  a  live-stock  dealer  in  Chicago,  showed  that  from  148,893 
head  of  cattle  slaughtered  in  that  city  by  one  of  the  largest  packing  concerns  there 
was  an  average  of  61.5  pounds  of  fat  in  those  animals  used  in  oleo  oil,  and  that  those 
61.5  pounds  made  28.1  pounds  of  oleo  oil,  which  goes  to  prove  that  there  is  less  than 
1  pound  of  oleo  oil  to  2  pounds  of  fat. 

The  oleomargarine  people,  in  all  of  their  claims  before  this  committee  and  in  other 
places,  have  stated  that  the  fat  used  from  the  steer  or  cattle  was  only  the  finest  and 
choicest  caul  fat;  and  Mr.  Miller  made  the  statement  to  you  that  if  they  used  any 
other  it  would  be  tallowy. 

According  to  this  report  of  Secretary  Wilson,  there  are  on  an  average  but  37.66 
pounds  of  caul  fat  to  the  steer  of  1,508  pounds,  and  it  is  well  known  that  cattle  that 
are  marketed  will  not  average  over  1,200  pounds.  That  would  be  a  heavy  average, 
would  it  not? 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  should  think  it  would  be  a  full  average,  at  least. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Under  those  circumstances,  I  think  you  can  go  to  the  bottom  of  the 
thing  and  find  that  they  can  not  make  more  than  15  "pounds  of  oleo  oil  from  the  caul 
fat  of  the  average  animal.  Counting  15  pounds  to  the  average  animal,  and  counting 
5,000,000  cattle  slaughtered  last  year,  they  have  recourse  to  caul  fat  for  the  making 
of  but  75,000,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil.  There  were  142,000,000  pounds  of  oleo  oil 
exported,  and  24,400,000  pounds  used  in  oleomargarine,  a  total,  I  think,  of  over 
166,000,000  pounds,  with  a  capacity  of  but  75, 000, 000  pounds  of  oleo  oil  from  caul  fat. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  I  supposed  they  used  all  the  fat. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  must  do  it  in  order  to  get  out  everything,  I  should  say.  Now, 
those  are  simply  statistics,  gentlemen. 

Senator  DOLLIVER.  Would  that  lift  them  out  entirely? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Not  at  28  pounds  to  the  head;  no,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Many  of  these  animals,  as  I  understand,  are  calves  and  other  ani- 
mals that  have  not  much  fat  in  them. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  On  an  average,  according  to  Mr.  Washburn' s  statement,  they  get  28.1 
pounds  of  oleo  oil  from  each  animal. 

Mr.  MILLER.  That  was  one  special  lot? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Oh,  no.     One  hundred  and  forty-seven  thousand  head. 

Senator  MONEY.  Whose  report  is  that? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  the  report  of  Elmer  E.  Washburn,  a  live-stock  dealer  of  Chi- 
cago, who  appeared  on  behalf  of  the  oleomargarine  makers.  It  is  in  that  record. 

Which  we  claim  disproves  the  theory  that  oleo  oil  is  made  wholly 
from  the  "caul  fat"  of  the  steer. 

THE   COTTON-SEED   OIL   OPPOSITION. 

The  protests  of  the  cotton-seed-oil  pressers  against  the  Grout  bill 
have  been  second  only  to  the  expressions  of  the  cattlemen.  The 


844  OLEOMARGARINE. 

basis  of  their  opposition  may  be  best  understood  from  the  following, 
taken  from  page  667  of  the  House  testimony,  Mr.  Fred  Oliver  repre- 
senting a  committee  from  about  400  oil  mills  in  the  South: 

Mr.  OLIVER.  About  $40,000,000  was  paid  to  the  farmers  for  seed;  about  $15,000,000 
for  the  transportation  of  the  seed  in  and  products  out;  about  $10,000,000  for  labor. 
In  this  country  there  is  used  probably  150,000  barrels,  of  50  gallons  each,  of  butter 
oil  in  manufacturing  oleomargarine — at  least  aboveboard.  How  much  there  is  used 
secretly  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  part  of  it  is  cotton-seed  oil? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  About  150,000  barrels  of  cotton-seed  oil,  of  50  gallons  each,  goes  into 
the  oleomargarine  through  the  large  manufacturers  that  are  now  being  taxed  and 
living  up  to  the  regulations. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  About  how  much  is  this  worth? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  About  40  cents  a  gallon,  of  7£  pounds  to  the  gallon. 

Mr.  NEVILLE.  Have  you  figured  out  the  number  of  pounds  so  that  you  know? 

Mr.  OLIVER.  No;  it  is  only  from  what  is  published  and  the  amount  of  taxes  paid 
on  oleomargarine.  Oleomargarine  contains  from  25  to  40  per  cent  of  cotton-seed  oil, 
depending  upon  the  weather  "and  the  season  of  the  year  it  is  made. 

It  appears  from  the  above  that  these  cotton-seed-oil  people  were  led 
to  believe  that  55,250,000  pounds  of  their  oil  were  used  in  the  83,000,000 
pounds  of  oleomargarine  made  the  previous  year,  as  that  is  the  weight 
of  150,000  barrels,  of  50  gallons  each.  He  stated,  as  shown  by  the 
record,  that  oleomargarine  contained  from  25  to  40  per  cent  of  cotton- 
seed oil. 

Secretary  Gage's  report,  quoted  a  number  of  times  before  this  com- 
mittee, shows  that,  instead  of  there  being  55, 250, 000  pounds  of  cotton- 
seed oil  used  in  the  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine,  there  were  less 
than  9,000,000  pounds;  that  instead  of  the  quantity  used  in  oleomar- 
garine being  from  25  to  40  per  cent,  as  represented  to  the  pressers  of 
cotton  seed,  it  was  only  about  10  per  cent. 

Efforts  to  pin  the  representatives  of  the  cotton-seed  oil  pressers  down 
to  some  definite  statement  before  this  committee  have  been  futile,  as 
the  record  will  show.  The  point  has  been  evaded  through  one  subter- 
fuge or  another,  and  the  following  discussion  or  colloquy  is  a  good 
example  of  the  futility  of  attempts  to  get  any  intelligent  statement 
from  those  interested,  and  is  found  on  pages  520  and  521: 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  With  reference  to  communications  from  farmers,  I  want  to  say 
that  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  the  farmers,  who  are  very  much  interested 
in  this  subject,  up  to  the  present  time  do  not  know  about  it,  and  those  who  produce 
the  cotton  seed  and  are  interested  in  the  cotton  seed  that  goes  into  the  cotton-seed  oil 
mills  do  not  know  about  it.  If  it  is  a  question  of  getting  communications  from 
farmers,  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  at  least  50  per  cent  of  the  farmers  could 
be  got  to  petition  against  the  bill,  which  will  depreciate  their  interest  not  less  than 
$2  a  ton  on  2,000,000  tons  of  seed. 

On  the  subject  of  the  interests  that  are  affected  we  have  some  testimony  that  was 
given  before  the  House  committee  on  the  subject  of  the  cattle  interests,  that  since 
the  fall  of  1895  there  has  been  a  depression  in  the  value  of  live  stock  to  the  extent 
of  $62,000,000.  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  the  passage  of  the  bill  would 
affect  the  farmers'  cotton-seed  interests  to  the  extent  of  at  least  $2  a  ton  on  all  the 
seed  that  they  sell. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Will  you  yield  to  a  question? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  How  do  you  figure  it  out? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  By  taking  the  quantity  of  oil  off  the  market  where  it  is  sold  at 
present;  it  will  depreciate  the  value  of  the  whole  amount  of  cotton -seed  oil,  because 
the  surplus  product  is  what  controls  prices,  not  the  whole  quantity. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  the  quantity  of  oil? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  quantity  of  oil  is  from  1,500,000  to  2,000,000  barrels.  It  is 
difficult  to  state  the  amount  exactly. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  that  quantity? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  is  from  1,500,000  to  2,000,000  barrels  of  oil  that  is  produced. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  845 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  do  not  grasp  my  question.  That  is  what  I  have  been  trying  to 
get  at  in  the  cotton-seed  business.  What  do  you  consider  to  be  the  relative  value  of 
the  production  of  oleo  in  this  country  to  cotton-seed  oil? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  consider  the  finest  pressed  oil  about  5  cents  a  gallon. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  not  the  question  at  all.  What  is  your  market  for  cotton-seed 
oil  to  these  manufacturers?  How  much  do  you  market? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  We  have  their  testimony  for  that.  I  think  they  can  give  you  a 
more  accurate  estimate  of  it  than  I  can,  probably. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  Internal-Revenue  Commissioner  shows  that 
you  sold  to  them  last  year  less  than  $500,000  worth  of  that  oil? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  could  not  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  it  is  a  fact.  I  think  the  committee  will  accept  my  statement, 
because  this  is  a  matter  of  record. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  But  that  may  not  be  any  measure  at  all  of  the  quantity  of  oil  that 
goes  into  the  product,  because  it  may  have  gone  through  several  other  channels. 
We  know  that  they  use  cotton-seed  oil  to  the  extent  of  10  to  30  per  cent  and  that  it 
furnishes  a  large  market  for  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  not  know  how  much  they  actually  use? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  According  to  their  testimony,  I  say. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  not  know  how  much,  exactly,  they  use  according  to  their 
own  testimony? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  That  testimony  stands  for  itself. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is,  what  is  the  value  of  the  product?  Accord- 
ing to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  it  was  about  8,800,000  pounds,  as  I  understand. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  It  is  not  a  question  of  the  value  of  that.  It  is  a  question  of  what 
will  be  the  cause  of  destroying  that  market  and  limiting  the  sale  of  cotton-seed  oil 
in  the  markets  that  are  left. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  ask  you  this  question:  You  claim  here,  as  I  understand, 
that  the  loss  of  a  market  of  a  half  million  dollars'  worth  of  cotton-seed  oil  would 
lower  the  value  of  your  product  to  the  extent  of  $2,000,000. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  In  a  differential  market  it  might  easily. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Then,  why  would  it  not  be  a  good  investment  to  burn  up  a  half  mil- 
lion dollars'  worth  and  thus  advance  the  price  $2,000,000? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  We  are  not  in  the  business  of  burning  up.  Each  man  would  have 
to  burn  his  own  oil,  and  you  can  not  bring  about  a  situation  of  that  kind.  It  might 
bring  about  the  same  result  if  you  did.  No  individual  man  is  going  to  burn  his  own 
product,  and  I  doubt  if  the  law  would  permit  a  combination  to  do  it.  That  is  not 
the  question  at  issue. 

Failing  to  secure  any  satisfactory  explanation  the  following  state- 
ment was  made  at  the  suggestion  of  Senator  Allen,  as  shown  on  page 
48?.  The  representatives  of  the  oil  mills  were  present,  one  of  them 
having  just  concluded,  and  they  made  no  objection  or  criticisms  fur- 
ther than  recorded,  Mr.  Miller  being  a  representative  of  the  Armour 
Packing  Company,  of  Kansas  City,  Mo.  The  statement  and  discussion 
follows: 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  It  was  stated  by  Senator  Allen  that  probably  I  would  want  to  answer 
something  that  the  gentleman  preceding  me  has  said  in  regard  to  cotton-seed  oil. 

From  his  figures  I  gather  that  the  value  of  the  cotton  production  of  this  country  is 
$475,000,000.  From  figures  presented  by  other  people  here  I  take  it  that  the  value 
of  the  cotton-seed-oil  industry  is  $50,000,000,  making  a  total  of  $525,000,000.  Of  those 
$525,000,000  in  value  of  the  cotton  and  cotton-oil  product,  the  oleomargarine  people  of 
this  country  use  less  than  one-half  of  $1,000,000  worth.  The  amount  of  cotton-seed 
oil  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  in  this  country,  in  proportion  to  the 
product  of  oleomargarine,  basing  it  upon  the  figures  of  the  cotton-seed-oil  people 
themselves,  is  about  two-thirds  of  1  per  cent.  So  that  we  can  not  see,  gentlemen, 
any  great  harm  that  can  accrue  to  the  manufacturers  of  cotton-seed  oil  as  a  result  of 
this  legislation,  even  if  it  would  (as  they  claim)  crush  out  the  industry  entirely, 
which  we  den}*. 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  would  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  statement 
made  by  Mr.  Culbertson,  representing  the  Paris  Cotton  Oil  Company,  of  Paris,  Tex. 
That  statement  was  to  the  effect  that  the  amount  of  oil  made  for  the  manufacture  of 
oleomargarine  was  25  per  cent  of  the  total  amount  of  oil  made. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  do  not  know  what  Mr.  Culbertson  said,  but  I  do  know  that  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  reported  that  in  the  83,000,000  pounds  of  oleomarga- 
rine made  in  this  country  last  year  there  were  less  than  9,000,000  pounds  of  cottou-seed 


846  OLEOMARGARINE. 

oil.  I  can  not  give  you  in  pounds  the  amount  of  cotton-seed  oil  produced;  I  am 
only  giving  it  in  dollars,  as  shown  by  this  report,  which  does  not  give  it  in  pounds. 
So  that  that  statement  will  hardly  stand  the  test  of  reason,  when  it  is  seen  that  the 
value  of  all  of  the  cotton-seed  oil  is  $50,000,000  yearly  and  there  is  only  $500,000 
worth  used  in  the  oleomargarine  made  in  this  country,  as  25  per  cent  of  the 
$50,000,000  would  be  $12,500,000. 

Mr.  MILLER.  You  are  not  taking  into  consideration  the  amount  exported? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  we  make  into  oleomargarine  in  this  country  the  cotton-seed  oil 
that  is  exported? 

Mr.  MILLER.  What  would  be  the  effect  upon  the  export  trade  if  you  should  place 
a  ban  on  the  oil  used  in  this  country? 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  want  to  speak  in  connection  with  this  matter  of  "placing  a  ban" 
on  the  oil  in  this  country.  When  this  bill  was  up  for  consideration  in  1886,  the  cry 
was,  "If  you  place  a  2-cent  stamp  of  disapproval  on  oleomargarine,  you  will  place  a 
ban  on  the  article,  so  that  nobody  in  the  United  States  will  use  it."  But  the  min- 
ute the  tax  was  placed  on  oleomargarine  its  manufacturers  began  to  call  it  an  indorse- 
ment by  the  Government  of  oleomargarine;  and  the  matter  has  been  carried  into 
the  courts,  and  it  has  been  claimed  that  this  taxation  gave  the  Government's  stamp 
of  approval  to  oleomargarine. 

Now,  if  2  cents  a  pound  tax  will  give  you  the  Government's  stamp  of  approval,  a 
tax  of  10  cents  a  pound  will  give  you  five  times  that  much  approval.  [Laughter.] 

Upon  the  question  of  policy  of  the  South  opposing  the  Grout  bill 
and  thereby  crippling  the  dairy  interests,  Secretary  Wilson  discussed 
the  matter  as  follows  (p.  427) :  . 

Secretary  WILSON.  There  is  no  possible  direction  in  which  the  South  can  renovate 
its  worn-out  lands  so  fast  as  to  feed  that  cotton  seed  to  stock.  It  is  the  finest  feed  on 
earth. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  know  that.     I  am  a  farmer.     I  raise  cotton. 

Secretary  WILSON.  And  you  can  not  do  it  without  the  dairy  cow. 

Senator  MONEY.  I  raise  cows,  too. 

Secretary  WILSON.  The  dairy  cow  is  the  only  instrumentality.  You  can  not  do  it 
by  commercial  fertilizers,  because  it  will  not  put  the  humus  in  the  soil. 

Senator  MONEY.  You  are  right  about  that. 
******* 

A  10,000,000-bale  crop  of  cotton  gives  5,000,000  tons  of  seed.  Two  hundred  and 
twenty-five  million  gallons  of  oil  from  this  seed  may  be  sold  without  injury  to  the 
soil  upon  which  the  plant  grows,  but  the  residue  should  not  be  exported.  The  sale 
from  the  land  of  this  nitrogenous  by-product  results  in  shorter  crops  and  ultimate 
sterility,  which,  however,  may  be  arrested  by  encouraging  dairying  and  feeding  for 
nieat:3. 

A  great  deal  having  been  said  by  the  makers  of  oleomargarine  about 
the  use  of  strong  acids  in  the  so-called  renovation  of  old  butter,  it  will 
be  interesting  to  note  that  practically  all  oleomargarine  contains  an 
oil  that  has  been  refined  by  one  of  the  most  powerful  chemicals  in  use. 
The  following  is  from  page  348: 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Will  you  pardon  a  question? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Are  you  a  refiner  of  cotton-seed  oil? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  We  have  refineries  at  our  plants;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  use  any  chemicals  in  refining  cotton-seed  oil? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  There  is  no  way  to  refine  it  other  than  by  chemicals 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  chemical  is  used? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Various. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  the  principal  one? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  The  same  chemicals  that  have  been  used  ever  since  cotton-seed 
oil  was  refined. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  I  am  not  a  cotton-oil  man,  so  I  do  not  know  what  those  are,  and  I  do 
not  think  the  committee  does. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  We  use  caustic  soda  in  diluted  form.  We  furthermore  have  our 
own  processes  by  which  when  the  oil  is  finished  it  is  perfectly  neutral.  There  is 
absolutely  no  sign  of  chemical  or  of  coloring  matter. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  can  refine  cotton-seed  oil  and  make  it  absolutely  white — make 
what  they  call  a  winter  oil? 


OLEOMARGARINE.  847 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Yes;  tnat  can  be  done. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  you  think  it  is  possible  that  any  of  that  caustic  soda  will  be  left 
in  the  oil  after  the  refining? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  It  is  possible,  but  not  for  butter-oil  purposes. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Then  in  all  of  the  oleomargarine  that  we  eat  we  eat  an  oil  that  has 
been  through  a  process  of  refinement  by  caustic  soda  or  with  caustic  soda? 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Not  necessarily. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Well,  some  other  chemical  equally  strong. 

Mr.  CULBERSON.  Not  necessarily.  There  are  other  processes.   I  tell  you  what  we  use. 

HEALTHFULNESS  OF  OLEOMARGARINE. 

This  is  a  subject  upon  which  "doctors  disagree,"  and  which,  while 
we  have  alwa}^  and  do  now  claim  is  absolutely  immaterial  when  the 
evil  we  seek  to  remedy  is  fraud,  yet  we  do  not  shrink  from  the  discus- 
sion of  the  proposition. 

Dr.  Wiley  said  before  the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture,  as 
printed  on  page  772  of  the  House  report: 

From  a  chemical  study  of  the  composition  of  butter,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  it 
requires  less  effort  on  the  part  of  the  vital  organs  to  ferment  the  butter,  and  that  is 
the  reason  why  I  say  that  I  believe  butter  is  a  more  digestible  substance,  more  easily 
digested,  more  quickly  digested  than  oleomargarine. 

Speaking  from  a  practical  standpoint,  Secretary  Wilson  said,  as 
printed  on  page  417: 

There  is  an  impression  abroad  that  the  oleomargarine  industry  is  as  legitimate  and 
praiseworthy  as  making  butter  from  the  cow.  As  far  as  the  making  of  oleo  oil,  to  be 
sold  as  such,  is  concerned  there  is  no  controversy,  but  that  the  mixture  of  ingredi- 
ents that  compose  oleomargarine  is  as  healthy  as  the  butter  from  milk  of  the  cow 
nobody  who  has  inquired  into  both  can  believe.  The  flavor  of  butter,  a  prime  ele- 
ment in  palatability  and  digestibility,  comes  from  bacteria  universally  present  when- 
ever milk  is  exposed  to  the  atmosphere.  Fine  butter  has  a  fine  flavor,  one  of  its 
principal  characteristics.  Bacteria  feed  upon  casein,  an  element  not  found  in  vege- 
table fats  nor  in  the  tallow  of  animals.  The  imitation  of  butter  known  as  oleomar- 
garine is  washed  in  milk  in  order  that  some  of  the  casein  may  be  present  as  the  basis 
of  the  flavor.  The  imitation,  in  as  far  as  it  varies  from  genuine  butter,  lacks  both  the 
flavor  that  comes  from  a  full  complement  of  casein  and  the  digestibility  natural  to  the 
cow's  product.  It  is  well  known  that  the  scalding  of  milk  kills  the  bacterial  growth, 
after  which  it  will  keep  longer,  but  its  digestibility  is  greatly  impaired.  Butter  for 
immediate  consumption  is  but  slightly  worked,  so  that  the  leaving  within  it  of  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  casein  will  grow  bacteria  and  develop  flavor.  If  it  is  to  be  con- 
sumed in  a  week  it  is  worked  over  more,  and  if  within  two  weeks  still  more.  If  it  is 
to  be  kept  for  months  the  buttermilk  with  the  casein  is  thoroughly  worked  out, 
unless  it  is  to  be  put  in  cold  storage  and  kept  at  a  temperature  at  which  bacteria  will 
not  multiply. 

Milk  contains  a  ferment  that  changes  casein  into  a  digestible  nutrient.  The  imita- 
tion of  butter  made  by  the  chemist  is  a  mixture  of  fats  that  should  be  sold  for  what 
it  is.  It  is  not  as  palatable  nor  as  digestible  nor  as  grateful  to  the  human  system. 
The  digestible  juices  flow  freely.  When  palatable  food  is  eaten,  the  mouth  waters. 
Oils  and  fats  as  such  have  their  uses,  but  the  coloring  of  them  deceives  the  people 
and  induces  a  consumption  as  liberal  as  with  butter,  which,  while  not  so  injurious  to 
people  in  full  vigor  as  to  children  and  invalids,  is  nevertheless  undoubtedly  harmful. 
The  yellow  coloring  of  butter  in  winter,  when  it  has  a  light  shade,  if  green  cured 
hay  or  roots  are  not  used,  deceives  nobody.  The  yellow  coloring  of  a  mixture  of  fats 
is  with  intent  to  deceive. 

The  present  law  is  not  well  enforced;  it  is  evidently  difficult  of  enforcement.  The 
effacement  of  marks  and  brands  is  easily  done.  The  greatest  sufferers  are  the  poorer 
classes  and  consumers  who  have  not  the  opportunity  to  select  their  food.  If  there 
were  no  coloring  there  would  be  no  fraud.  The  most  intelligent  are  deceived,  how- 
ever, with  good  imitations,  and  from  careful  inquiry  I  am  satisfied  that  most  of  us 
are  using  the  bogus  product  at  greatly  increased  expense  over  the  price  of  the  oils  of 
commerce,  and  with  danger  to  health  from  the  less  digestible  and  less  palatable 
imitation. 


848  OLEOMARGARINE. 

And  on  page  585  of  the  House  report  will  be  found  the  following, 
submitted  by  Hon.  W.  D.  Hoord: 

Is  oleomargarine  a  healthful  food?  There  is  no  way  to  determine  this  question 
except  by  actual  trial;  not  for  a  day,  a  week,  or  a  month,  but  for  several  successive 
months,  and  not  with  strong,  robust  men  with  plenty  of  outdoor  exercise. 

Chemistry  can  not  answer.  For  example,  the  chemist  will  tell  you  that  he  finds 
the  same  elements  in  swamp  peat  that  are  found  in  the  grasses  and  hays  that  are  fed 
to  our  cows,  and  in  approximately  the  same  proportion.  And  the  chemist  is  at  a 
loss  to  determine  from  the  standpoint  of  his  science  why  cattle  should  not  feed  on 
swamp  peat.  Chemistry  can  not  determine  whether  any  particular  substance  is 
poisonous  or  not.  It  must  take  a  stomach  to  do  that. 

There  is  no  credible  evidence  to  show  that  oleomargarine  is  innocuous;  no  evi- 
dence to  show  that  when  eaten  continuously  in  place  of  butter  it  is  not  harmful. 
But  there  are  reports  in  great  abundance  to  the  effect  that  oleomargarine  is  harmful. 

Mr.  Edmund  Hill,  a  member  of  the  Somerset  County  council,  England,  reports 
that  the  great  bulk  of  oleomargarine,  or  "margarin,"  as  it  is  called  there,  is  eaten 
in  public  institutions,  convents,  schools,  etc.  At  the  Wells  Asylum,  with  which  he  is 
connected,  the  inmates  receive  oleomargarine.  In  the  asylums  of  Dorset,  Wells,  and 
Hants — the  adjoining  counties — butter  is  furnished,  and  the  death  rate  at  Wells  is  30 
per  cent  higher.  At  the  Taunton  Hospital  there  were  11  deaths  in  thirteen  months. 
Oleomargarine  was  substituted,  and  in  nine  months  the  deaths  rose  to  22. 

This  accords  with  the  experience  in  France,  where  its  use  in  hospitals  is  forbidden. 
In  the  United  States,  in  institutions  for  the  blind  and  for  girls,  it  has  been  noticed 
that  the  use  of  oleomargarine  lowered  the  vitality  of  the  inmates  very  perceptibly. 

Hon.  G.  L.  Flanders,  assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture  of  New 
York,  throws  some  light  upon  this  question  on  page  129: 

I  now  turn  to  the  report  made  by  Dr.  R.  D.  Clark  upon  the  heaitiiiuiness  of  oleo- 
margarine. He  is  a  chemist  and  medical  man  of  twenty  years'  standing,  and  I  want 
to  say  here  and  now  that  our  opinion  in  the  State  of  New  York,  after  having  given  this 
subject  a  great  deal  of  study  and  thought  and  after  having  obtained  the  very  best  advice 
we  could  get,  is  that  a  chemist  is  not,  by  virtue  of  his  chemical  knowledge,  a  com- 
petent man  to  tell  about  the  healthfulness  of  food  products.  A  chemist's  province 
is  to  take  a  commodity  and  take  it  apart,  and  tell  what  is  in  it.  It  is  no  part  of  his 
work  to  tell  what  effect  that  article  produces  upon  the  human  system.  That  is  a 
physiological  question.  Dr.  Clark,  a  physician,  says,  relative  to  the  healthfulness  oi 
oleomargarine : 

"We  now  come  to  the  all-important  aspect  of  the  subject,  Is  artificial  butter  a 
wholesome  article  of  food?  We  answer  it  in  the  negative,  on  the  following  grounds: 

"First.  On  account  of  its  indigestibility. 

"Second.  On  account  of  its  insolubility  when  made  from  animal  fats. 

"  Third.  On  account  of  its  liability  to  carry  germs  of  disease  into  the  human  system. 

"Fourth.  On  account  of  the  probability  of  its  containing,  when  made  under  certain 
patents,  unhealthy  ingredients." 

A  full  report  of  Dr.  Clark's  statement  is  contained  on  pages  129, 130, 
131,  and  132  of  the  Senate  testimony. 

But  this  is  a  question  the  discussion  of  which  would  occupy  volumes, 
with  no  possibility,  apparently,  of  an  agreement  of  authorities,  except 
that  the  chemist  appears  to  be  on  the  side  of  oleomargarine  and  the 
plrysician  on  the  side  of  pure  butter. 

AS  TO   GOVERNMENT   INSPECTION. 

As  producers  bearing  a  large  share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation  for 
the  support  of  the  Government,  we  feel  it  no  more  than  just  that  the 
impression  which  the  makers  of  oleomargarine  seek  to  convey,  that 
their  product  has  the  stamp  of  approval  of  the  Government  and  that 
its  purity  is  certified  to  by  the  Internal-Revenue  Department,  should 
be  dispelled. 

We  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  statements  of  various  wit- 
nesses upon  this  subject,  which  statements  convey  a  wrong  impression, 


OLEOMARGARINE.  849 

as  also  shown  by  the  records.  Rathbone  Gardner,  representing  the 
Oakdale  Manufacturing  Company,  of  Providence,  R.  L,  said  on  pages 
18  and  19: 

As  I  have  said,  I  believe  it  is  the  one  substance  which  is,  as  no  other  substance 
possibly  can  be  under  existing  laws,  certified  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
to  be  absolutely  pure.  *  *  *  It  seems  unnecessary  to  argue  this  point.  I  pre- 
sume the  members  of  this  committee  know  the  conditions  under  which  oleomargarine 
is  produced — that  there  has  to  be  a  regular  formula;  that  there  is  a  chemist  main- 
tained at  the  expense  of  the  Government  who  examines  samples;  that  representatives 
of  the  Internal-Revenue  Department  stand  in  the  doorway  of  every  oleo  manufactory; 
that  they  know  exactly  what  comes  into  the  building  and  what  goes  out  of  the  building. 

And  on  page  37  entered  into  the  following  discussion: 

Mr.  GARDNER.  To  see  what  ingredients  go  into  oleomargarine.  The  manufacturer 
is  required  to  make  a  monthly  statement,  under  oath,  of  every  pound  of  ingredient 
he  uses  in  the  manufacture.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  inspector  or  the  deputy  inspector, 
as  I  understand  it,  to  verify  that  report  and  under  oath  to  say  that  the  manufacturer's 
statement  is  correct  or  incorrect. 

Mr.  HOARD.  Do  you  believe  that  the  manufacturer  always  states  the  truth  con- 
cerning the  ingredients  of  olemargarine? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Yes,  sir;  the  manufacturers  of  which  I  know  anything.  That  is 
my  belief;  it  is  not  worth  much  one  way  or  the  other. 

In  his  testimony  on  page  111  Judge  Springer,  representing  the 
National  Live  Stock  Association,  said: 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  several  statements  made  by  gentlemen  at  that  time. 
You  will  hardly  believe  that  such  things  could  have  been.  There  were  several  bills 
pending,  and  the  Hatch  bill  was  finally  passed.  It  provides  for  placing  a  tax  of  2 
cents  a  pound  upon  oleomargarine,  and  for  a  general  inspection,  through  the  Depart- 
ments of  the  Government,  of  every  part  of  the  article  manufactured,  so  that  when 
you  see  oleomargarine  manufactured  in  this  country  you  see  an  article  that  the  officers 
of  the  Government  have  inspected  from  its  inception  to  the  time  it  passes  away  from 
the  factory  in  the  original  packages.  They  certify  to  its  condition. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  mean  that  the  law  provides  for  the  inspection? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  I  do. 

Mr.  FLANDERS.  That  it  may  be  done. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  provides  "for  it. 

Mr.  HOARD.  It  may  be  done. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  provides  for  it. 

Mr.  HOARD.  You  do  not  assert  that  it  is  done? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  assert  as  to  whether  or  not  anybody  performs  his 
duty,  but  the  law  presumes  that  every  officer  of  the  Government  does  his  duty,  and 
until  the  contrary  is  shown  I  assume  that  they  have  done  their  duty.  The  law 
assumes  that  everybody  is  honest,  and  especially  does  the  law  assume  that  the  officers 
of  the  Government  and  of  the  States  do  their  duty.  I  hope  they  do.  If  they  do  not, 
they  ought  to  be  taught  to  do  it. 

On  page  262  the  following  will  be  found  in  the  remarks  of  Mr. 
Charles  E.  Schell,  representing  the  Cincinnati  Butterine  Company, 
et  al.: 

Again,  the  factories  must  be  ready  at  all  times  for  Government  inspection.  The 
local  people,  it  will  perhaps  be  claimed,  could  be  provided  against.  They  would 
know  them,  and  perhaps  would  know  of  their  coming.  Fellow-citizens  of  the  same 
town  are  not  apt  to  take  undue  advantages,  possibly;  but  the  Government,  the  rev- 
enue officers,  have  their  secret  agents  who  go  about  from  time  to  time,  and  the  manu- 
facturers know  not  the  day  nor  the  hour  when  they  are  going  to  appear.  They  must 
be  ready  at  all  times. 

And  on  page  149  the  following  discussion,  Mr.  Pirrung  being  the 
manager  of  a  butterine  concern  at  Columbus,  Ohio: 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Another  thing.  In  speaking  of  the  inspection  of  the  Government  in 
the  oleo  factories,  do  you  mean  to  infer  that  the  Government  does  inspect  the  oleo 
factories? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Most  decidedly. 

S.  Rep.  2043 54 


850  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  they  make  chemical  analyses  of  the  oleomargarine  right  along? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Yes,  sir;  the  Bureau  of  Chemistry  of  the  Agricultural  Department 
does  that  for  them. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  How  many  factories  are  there  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  I  think  about  twenty-five  or  thirty. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  And  about  how  many  inspections  do  they  make  of  the  products  you 
turn  out? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  I  can  not  state  for  other  manufacturers,  but  perhaps  they  come  to 
us  five  or  six  times  a  year.  They  do  not  only  require  samples  from  the  factories  for 
the  inspection;  they  go  all  over  the  United  States,  or  States  where  our  product  or 
any  other  manufactured  product  is  sold,  and  take  up  samples  unknown  to  us. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Do  they  analyze  them? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Yes. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  That  is  done  among  the  retailers? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  Yes;  I  presume  so,  and  among  wholesalers  as  well. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  There  are  about  10,000  retailers  in  the  country,  according  to  the  last 
report. 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  I  do  not  know.    You  are  better  posted  on  that  than  I  am. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  What  is  the  penalty  if  anything  is  found  hi  your  product  that  is  not 
wholesome? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  I  have  always  understood  the  Government  would  be  compelled 
to  close  up  our  factory. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  You  are  not  acquainted  with  the  law  very  well,  then,  are  you? 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  I  thought  I  was. 

Mr.  CLARK.  They  would  not  only  close  it  up,  but  would  confiscate  it. 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  They  would  confiscate  the  goods  that  they  find. 

Mr.  PIRRUNG.  They  will  close  up  our  factory.  If  you  will  read  the  law,  you  will 
post  yourself. 

On  page  493  will  be  found  the  following  statement  made  before  the 
committee  by  your  orator: 

Now  let  me  show  you  another  case.  These  people  have  said  a  good  deal  to  your 
committee  down  here  about  the  inspection  of  the  Internal-Revenue  Department,  and 
about  how  they  are  compelled  to  report  every  ingredient,  and  that  they  are  compelled 
to  do  this  that,  and  the  other. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  present  oleomargarine  law  can  not  compel  them  to  do  any- 
thing that  they  do  not  want  to  do.  All  that  they  need  to  do  is  to  hide  behind  their 
constitutional  right  and  claim  that  the  evidence  called  for  will  incriminate  them. 

Here  is  a  case  which  is  entitled  uln  re  Kinney,  collector  of  internal  revenue." 
The  heading  is  ' '  Examination  of  books. ' ' 

"W.  F.  Kinney,  collector  of  internal  revenue,  district  of  Connecticut,  issued  a  sum- 
mons, under  section  3173,  Revised  Statutes,  against  the  Oakdale  Manufacturing 
Company,  a  corporation  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine.  The  parties 
refused  to  comply  with  the  summons,  and  the  collector  petitioned  the  United  States 
district  judge  for  an  attachment  against  F.  M.  Mathewson,  president  of  the  company, 
directed  to  the  United  States  marshal  of  the  district,  commanding  him  to  arrest  said 
Frank  M.  Mathewson  and  bring  him  before  the  judge  to  show  cause  why  he  should 
not  be  adjudged  in  contempt  and  punished  according  to  law,  as  provided  by  section 
3175,  Revised  Statutes." 

In  t!;  Is  connection  it  may  be  said  that  this  talk  about  these  people  being  compelled 
to  make  a  return  of  the  materials  and  products  is  all  bosh.  They  can  not  be  made 
to  do  it  if  they  do  not  want  to.  They  make  the  return  if  they  wish,  and  if  they  do 
not  wish  they  will  not  do  it,  and  they  do  not  have  to,  according  to  this  decision. 

The  decision  of  the  judge  was  adverse  to  the  collector.     He  held  that — 

"The  provisions  of  Revised  Statutes,  section  3173,  authorizing  a  collector  of  internal 
revenue  to  summon  before  him  for  examination  any  person  charged  by  the  law  with 
the  duty  of  making  returns  of  objects  subject  to  tax,  do  not  apply  to  persons  required 
under  the  oleomargarine  law  to  make  returns  of  materials  and  products.  Such  pro- 
visions relate  only  to  objects  of  taxation  upon  which  the  tax  is  collected  by  the 
method  of  return  and  assessment,  and  not  to  those  upon  which  the  tax  is  required  to 
be  paid  by  a  stamp;  and  a  collector  has  no  power  under  section  3173  to  compel  a 
person  to  appear  and  testify  to  the  correctness  of  the  returns  made  under  the  oleo- 
margarine law."  (102  Fed.  Rep.,  468.) 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  above  is  the  concern  represented  by  Mr. 
Gardner. 
Your  committee  can  hardly  believe  men  engaged  in  a  business  in 


OLEOMARGARINE.  851 

which  they  have  thousands  of  dollars  invested  can  be  so  ignorant  of 
the  law  as  to  unintentionally  make  such  statements. 

But  in  order  to  fully  settle  this  matter  we  refer  to  the  testimony  of 
the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  upon  pages  564  and  565 :" 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Your  revenue  agents,  Mr.  Secretary,  are  expected  to  visit 
these  factories  and  to  take  observations  with  respect  to  the  quality  of  the  ingredients 
constituting  oleomargarine,  are  they  not? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  are  their  opportunities  for  observation  in  that 
direction? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Oh,  they  are  ample  in  these  large  establishments.  They  are  all 
open  to  our  agents. 

Senator  BATE.  Have  you  scientific  inspectors  to  investigate  what  the  component 
parts  of  this  product  are? 

Secretary  GAGE.  No;  I  do  not  think  we  have.  We  put  it  to  the  test  frequently, 
however.  We  get  samples  and  have  analyses  made  of  the  product.  That  is  to  say, 
we  have  done  so  in  the  past;  I  do  not  know  what  we  are  doing  just  at  this  moment. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Your  agents,  however,  are  not  all  experts  in  the  examination  of 
oleomargarine,  are  they? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Oh,  no — no. 

Senator  ALLEN.  So  that  they  might  be  imposed  upon,  as  well  as  the  ordinary 
intelligent  citizen? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Very  easily. 

Senator  ALLEN.  They  might  walk  into  a  place  and  call  for  butter,  and  oleomarga- 
rine might  be  handed  to  them  as  butter;  and  unless  they  took  it  to  some  person 
competent  to  make  an  analysis  of  it,  they  might  not  know  the  difference? 

Secretary  GAGE.  That  is  quite  true. 

Senator  BATE.  Do  you  keep  agents  at  any  of  these  large  establishments? 

Secretary  GAGE.  I  do  not  think  we  do  keep  any  regular  watch  on  them. 
*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

Senator  ALLEN.  Then  you  do  not  keep  such  agents  in  these  large  establishments 
which  manufacture  oleomargarine? 
Secretary  GAGE.  No. 
******* 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  only  thing  with  which  you  are  concerned  is  the  tax? 

Secretary  GAGE.  That  is  the  main  thing,  of  course. 

Senator  MONEY.  The  remark  you  have  just  made,  Mr.  Secretary,  suggests  this  ques- 
tion: You  say  the  greater  the  tax  the  greater  the  incentive  to  fraud.  The  same  rule 
would  apply  here,  would  it  not? 

Secretary  GAGE.  Undoubtedly. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  the  instructions  of  your  Department,  Mr.  Secretary, 
require  the  agents  who  visit  these  manufactories  to  report  to  you  with  respect  to  the 
purity  of  the  ingredients  used? 

Secretary  GAGE.  No;  I  do  not  think  so. 

And  to  show  the  utter  absurdity  of  this  claim  of  inspection  your 
attention  is  called  to  the  following  statement  of  your  orator  on 
page  499: 

There  are  in  the  United  States  over  9,500  dealers,  I  believe,  and  30  manufacturers 
of  oleomargarine.  The  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  for  the  year 
1900,  which  I  hold  here,  shows  that  during  the  year  1900  the  chemical  department 
of  that  bureau  made  177  analyses  of  oleomargarine.  You  can  figure  the  proportion 
177  bears  to  nearly  10,000.  That  will  show  you  how  many  times  a  year  they  get 
around  to  these  retailers  and  inspect  their  goods,  and  inspect  the  wholesalers,  and 
inspect  the  factories. 

AS  TO  POLICY. 

The  dairymen  are  not  asking  paternal  protection  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  fostering  their  great  and  important  industry.  They  only  ask 
the  Government  to  use  its  strong  arm  to  protect  them  against  an 
illegitimate  fraud  which  has  proven  itself  to  be  beyond  the  reach  of 
State  laws. 

But  in  the  evidence  a  number  of  points  have  been  brought  out  which 
are  worthy  of  consideration  by  your  committee.  • 


852  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Along  this  line  Secretary  Wilson  says,  on  page  415: 

The  dairy  cow  is  the  most  valuable  agent  of  the  producer,  and  her  milk  is  one  of 
nature's  perfect  rations.  She  gives  profitable  employment  to  all  who  care  for  her  or 
her  products.  She  gathers  her  food  from  the  fields  without  intervening  help  in 
summer,  and  turns  cheap  forage  into  high  selling  products  in  winter.  The  grasses 
that  grow  for  her  in  her  pasture  return  humus  to  worn-out  lands,  enabling  them  to 
retain  moisture  and  resist  droughts,  in  addition  to  inviting  nitrogen  from  the  atmos- 
phere through  the  agency  of  the  legumes  upon  which  she  grazes.  She  is  the  mother 
of  the  steer  that  manufactures  beef  from  grasses,  grains,  and  the  by-products  of  the 
mills. 

*  >****** 

The  farmer  who  keeps  a  herd  of  dairy  cows  returns  through  the  herd  to  the  soil 
all  the  crops  he  gathers  from  it,  except  the  products  of  skill  that  take  little  plant 
food  from  the  soil.  The  lint  of  cotton  and  the  fine  flour  of  wheat  are  among  our 
leading  exports,  and  take  little  from  the  soil;  the  fats  of  the  cow  and  the  plants  take 
nothing  whatever.  The  cow  and  her  calf  are  prime  necessities  in  reclaiming  worn- 
out  land.  The  cotton-growing  States  that  have  reduced  fertility  by  too  much  crop- 
ping can  bring  back  the  strength  of  the  soil  by  growing  the  grazing  plants  and  feed- 
ing the  meal  of  cotton-seed  to  the  dairy  cow  and  her  calf,  but  the  farmers  of  no  part 
of  our  country  can  afford  to  keep  cows  for  the  sole  purpose  of  raising  calves,  except 
free  commoners  on  the  public  domains,  whose  privileges  are  being  contracted  to 
such  an  extent  by  injudicious  grazing  that  every  year  fewer  cattle  are  found  on  the 
ranges  of  the  semiarid  States. 

The  meats  to  feed  our  people  in  future  must  come,  in  large  measure,  from  the  high- 
priced  farms  east  of  the  one  hundredth  meridian  of  west  longitude.  The  feeding  steers 
will  be  bred  on  those  farms  from  the  dairy  cows  that  are  now  and  will  become  more 
and  more  a  necessity. 

Hon.  John  Hamilton,  secretary  of  agriculture  for  Pennsylvania, 
is  reported  as  follows,  on  pages  157  and  158: 

Careful  examination  should  be  made  into  the  effect  which  this  will  have  upon  the 
dairy  industry  of  the  Commonwealth,  which  has  now  become  one  of  the  leading  and 
most  profitable  branches  of  our  agriculture.  If,  upon  examination,  it  is  found  that 
oleomargarine  will  to  any  considerable  degree  drive  out  the  dairy  interests  from  the 
markets  of  the  Commonwealth,  it  would  seem  to  be  only  wise  public  policy  to  first 
make  sure  that  the  industry  that  is  to  replace  this  branch  of  our  agriculture  shall  do 
more  for  the  Commonwealth  in  the  way  of  substantial  and  permanent  support  than 
the  important  occupation  that  it  proposes  to  supplant. 

The  admitting  of  oleomargarine  in  competition  with  the  dairy  products  of  the  State 
endangers  a  great  industry  that  is  now  a  part  of  our  system  of  agriculture  more  widely 
distributed  than  any  other.  We  have  now  about  1,100,000  cows  in  Pennsylvania. 
Their  product  is  about  90,000,000  to  100,000,000  pounds  of  butter  per  year,  and 
according  to  the  census  of  1890  the  milk  product  was  437,525,349  gallons.  These 
cows  are  distributed  among  211,412  farmers'  families,  consisting  of  over  1,000,000 
persons,  or  about  one-fifth  of  our  entire  population.  The  income  of  the  farming 
people  of  Pennsylvania  last  year  from  butter  alone  amounted  to  between  eighteen 
and  twenty  millions  of  dollars;  and  the  milk  product,  at  8  cents  per  gallon,  amounted 
to  $35,000,000  more.  This  vast  sum  is  a  new  product  each  year,  adding  this  much  to 
the  actual  wealth  of  the  State,  and  is  distributed  all  through  the  Commonwealth, 
going  to  the  support  of  overl,000,000  people,  enabling  them  to  maintain  themselves  in 
comparative  comfort.  The  loss  of  such  a  sum  as  this  by  the  agricultural  people  of 
the  State  would  be  a  calamity,  particularly  because  much  of  the  material  that  is 
used  in  the  feeding  of  these  dairy  cows  would,  if  the  industry  were  destroyed,  be 
left  on  the  farmers'  hands  valueless. 

And  on  page  134  will  be  found  the  following  from  Hon.  G.  L.  Flan- 
ders, assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture  of  New  York  State: 

Do  you  know  that  in  the  great  State  of  New  York  there  are  1,600,000  cows?  Do 
you  know  we  have  250,000  persons  engaged  in  farm  work?  And  yet  you  seek  to  come 
into  our  market  and  drive  us  out  and  ruin  that  industry.  Is  there  anything  fair  about 
that?  We  ask  you  to  stand  up  like  men  and  sell  your  commodity  for  what  it  is.  Then 
if  you  can  compete  with  us  we  will  stand  it  like  men.  Not  many  years  ago  we  were  in 
the  meat  market.  We  raised  cattle  in  New  York  and  sold  them  for  meat.  We  sold 
cereals.  The  Genesee  and  Rochester  valleys  were  great  wheat  fields.  Then  the  wheat 


OLEOMARGARINE.  853 

fields  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  were  opened  up,  cultivated  by  machinery.  Then 
South  America  opened  up  her  wheat  fields  and  produced  grain  at  37  cents  a  bushel 
on  shipboard,  Australia  opened  up  her  wheat  fields,  and  now  Russia  is  opening  up 
Siberia  to  the  production  of  the  cereals.  We  are  driven  entirely  out  of  the  cereals 
market.  We  have  been  driven  out  of  the  meat  market,  and  there  has  not  been  one 
word  of  complaint.  It  was  done  among  men  in  open  competition;  but  we  do  com- 
plain when  you  take  all  that  is  left  and  seek  to  do  it  by  fraud.  I  can  not  conceive 
how  any  man  who  has  had  any  experience  anywhere  that  gives  him  a  knowledge  of 
ethics,  can  sustain  the  man  who  has  placed  upon  the  market  a  commodity  looking, 
smelling,  and  tasting  like  another,  as  that  other,  and  then  say  when  we  ask  him  to 
stop  it  that  we  are  trying  to  down  a  healthy  competition.  It  is  not  competition.  It 
is  downright  robbery. 

And  from  Hon.  W.  D.  Hoard,  president  of  the  National  Dairy  Union, 
the  following  on  page  413: 

This  law  is  demanded  in  the  interest  of  a  broad  public  policy,  for  the  protection 
of  legitimate  industry  against  illegitimate  counterfeiting  and  fraud.  Compare  the 
policy  pursued  by  the  United  States  with  that  of  Canada.  The  Dominion  government 

fuards  the  purity  and  honesty  of  her  dairy  products  to  the  extent  of  absolute  prohi- 
ition  of  any  adulteration  or  counterfeiting  of  the  same.  As  a  result  her  export  of 
cheese  to  England  alone  has  grown  in  twenty  years  from  $3,000,000  to  $20,000,000, 
while  ours  has  declined  nearly  the  same  amount,  because  we  did  not  place  the  strong 
hand  of  the  law  on  the  adulterated  product,  filled  cheese,  until  we  had  lost  the  con- 
fidence of  the  foreign  consumer. 

The  fears  of  the  dairymen  from  the  encroachment  of  the  oleomar- 
garine fraud  find  good  voice  in  the  following  extract  from  Judge 
Springer's  statement  on  page  91: 

The  total  production  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United  States  for  the  year  ending 
June  30,  1900,  was  107,045,028  pounds.  This  was  a  consumption  of  only  1.4  pounds 
per  capita.  Without  repressive  laws  in  any  of  the  States  the  consumption  might  have 
been  as  great  per  capita  as  in  Rhode  Island.  This  would  have  increased  the  demand 
for  oleomargarine  for  consumption  in  the  United  States  per  annum  to  over  600,000,000 
pounds.  It  is  not  surprising,  in  view  of  these  facts,  that  the  friends  of  the  pending 
bill  desire  the  enactment  of  the  first  section,  which  will  place  oleomargarine  under 
the  repressive  laws  of  32  States  in  the  Union,  with  a  fair  prospect  of  securing  equally 
oppressive  legislation  in  the  remaining  13  States. 

As  the  dairymen's  market  for  butter  in  this  country  only  amounts  to 
about  800,000,000  pounds  outside  of  the  producer,  who  consumes 
700,000,000  pounds  of  the  1,500,000,000  pounds  of  butter  produced,  it 
would  seem  that  conditions  do  warrant  their  present  alarm. 

EVIDENCE   INTRODUCED   UNDER   FALSE   PRETENSES. 

We  deem  it  our  duty  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the 
evidence  of  Francis  W.  Lestrade,  of  New  York  City,  who  appeared 
before  this  committee  in  the  interests  of  oleomargarine. 

The  record  (p.  164)  shows  that  he  introduced  himself  as  follows: 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  wish  to  state  on 
the  outstart  that  it  is  seldom  I  am  called  upon  to  speak  in  public. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  interested  in  the  manufacture,  are  you,  or  are  you  acting 
as  counsel? 

Mr.  LESTRADE.  No;  I  was  about  to  say  that  I  am  nothing  more  than  a  practical 
everyday  butterrnan.  I  have  been  in  business  for  twenty  years,  and  what  I  say 
before  you  is  entirely  from  a  practical  standpoint,  not  a  theoretical  standpoint,  and 
not  from  any  scientific*  point  of  view,  but  from  what  has  come  under  my  observation 
as  a  butterrnan  ever  since  I  was  a  boy. 

I  am  a  member  of  the  firm  of  Lestrade  Brothers,  New  York  City.  I  am  an  owner 
of  and  interested  in  dairy  farms,  both  in  the  West  and  in  the  East.  I  am  also  inter- 
ested in  cows.  I  am  also  interested  in  three  different  creameries.  I  am  also,  and 
this  is  our  chief  business  in  the  city,  an  exporter,  a  packer  of  butter  and  cheese  to 
the  hot  countries  as  well  as  to  the  Continent,  but  mostly  to  the  hot  countries.  Our 


854  OLEOMARGARINE. 

business  extends  over  all  the  hot  countries — that  is,  the  tropical  climates,  consisting  of 
the  West  Indies,  the  East  Indies,  South  Africa,  China,  South  America,  and  even  now 
into  the  Philippine  Islands. 

So  what  I  have  to  say  is  entirely  in  my  own  interest,  and  more  particularly  as  an 
exporter  of  the  genuine  butter  that  goes  out  of  this  country  to  foreign  climates. 

And  to  further  impress  upon  the  committee  the  cause  of  his  interest 
in  the  bill  he  stated  on  page  177,  as  shown  by  the  discussion  in  the 
record: 

The  question  may  arise  in  your  minds,  gentlemen,  why  am  I  opposed  to  this  bill, 
as  all  my  interests — my  money,  what  little  I  have,  or  the  greater  part  of  it — are  in 
butter.  It  is  merely  this:  That,  as  I  have  stated,  oleomargarine  has  been  a  friend  to 
butter;  has  made  us  dairymen,  farmers,  creamery  men,  make  better  butter.  The 
second  reason  is  that  the  dairymen  throughout  the  United  States  are  getting  a  good 
profit  on  their  butter.  We  are  making  money.  My  creameries  are  making  money. 
I  do  not  know  of  any  creameries  that  are  not  making  money.  We  are  making  from 
10  to  50  per  cent.  Legitimately  we  are  making  from  10  to  20  per  cent;  speculatively 
we  are  making  a  great  deal  more.  *  *  * 

I  do  not  want  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  prohibited.  I  want  it  for  a  balance,  so  to 
speak,  to  keep  wild  speculation  down.  I  can  not  afford  as  a  creamery  man — a  man 
interested  in  butter — to  put  myself  in  the  position,  if  I  can  help  it,  of  allowing  specu- 
lators to  come  in  and  manipulate  butter.  It  is  bad  enough  now  as  it  is;  but  wipe  out 
oleo,  which  you  will  if  you  put  this  10-cent  prohibitory  tax  on,  and  there  is  not  a 
man  in  the  country  could  do  anything  in  regard  to  steady  prices.  They  can  no 
more  sell  oleomargarine  white  than  you  could  sell  butter  white.  I  have  made  white 
butter  up  in  small  quantities,  and  the  only  people  who  take  white  butter  are  our 
friends  the  Israelites,  and  they  only  take  it  in  small  quantities. 

On  page  369  appears  the  following  from  Assistant  Commissioner  of 
Agriculture  Kracke,  of  the  Metropolitan  district  of  New  York: 

Mr.  KRACKE.  There  is  one  other  point  to  which  I  want  briefly  to  call  attention, 
and  that  is  the  fact  that  there  appeared  before  this  committee  last  week  a  man  from 
New  York  who  stated  that  he  was  a  commission  merchant  and  a  dealer  in  butter. 
In  making  his  statement  he  took  up  an  interview  of  mine  in  a  New  York  paper  and 
attempted  to  distort  it  so  as  to  have  me  say  something  that  I  did  not  say.  I  refer  to 
Mr.  Lestrade,  who  came  here  and  made  a  statement  before  the  committee.  I  wish 
now  to  ask  the  committee  if  Mr.  Lestrade  told  the  committee  that  he  was  an  oleo- 
margarine manufacturer? 

The  record  will  here  show  that  an  attempt  was  made  to  ascertain 
what  representations  Mr.  Lestrade  made  as  to  his  interest  in  the  mat- 
ter, but  the  notes  not  having  been  transcribed  it  was  not  possible  to 
review  the  proceedings.  Because  of  this  lack  of  facility  at  the  time, 
we  believe  we  are  warranted  by  the  condition  to  state  that  investiga- 
tion shows  that  Mr.  Lestrade  is  one  of  the  proprietors  of  the  Goshen 
Manufacturing  Company,  makers  of  oleomargarine,  Providence,  R.  I. 
The  following  appears  on  page  369  of  the  record,  however: 

Mr.  KNIGHT.  Have  you  ever  had  any  trouble,  Mr.  Kracke,  with  any  Providence 
concern  shipping  stuff  in  through  Jersey  City? 
Mr.  KRACKE.  Well,  there  was  trouble  with  this  particular  one — Lestrade  Brothers. 

The  difficulty  referred  to  was  the  fining  of  Mr.  Lestrade's  concern 
$600  for  violations  of  the  New  York  oleomargarine  law. 

Before  bringing  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  your  committee,  we 
have  carefully  searched  the  record  and  in  no  place  find  the  admission 
of  Mr.  Lestrade  that  he  is  a  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine. 


Members  of  the  committee  present  at  the  hearings  when  representa- 
tives of  labor  organizations  appeared  are  well  prepared  to  judge  of  the 
force  of  the  opposition  they  represent. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  855 

Your  orator  will  briefly  call  attention  to  his  statement  on  pages  471 
and  472,  wherein  it  is  shown  that  organized  labor  in  Chicago,  in  1897, 
severely  condemned  the  yellow  oleomargarine  fraud.  The  following 
is  a  portion  of  that  statement: 

In  1897  we  had  before  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Illinois  a  law  which  sought  to 
prohibit  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine  in  the  semblance  of  butter,  known  as  the 
Fuller  bill,  which  I  was  looking  after  at  the  time,  and  which  passed  the  legislature 
finally.  I  went  to  the  Federation  of  Labor  of  the  city  of  Chicago  and  called  on  its 
legislative  committee.  I  called  those  gentlemen  together  and  I  told  them  the  con- 
dition of  things  in  Chicago.  I  showed  them  what  we  were  attempting  to  accomplish, 
and  asked  their  cooperation  in  the  matter.  I  asked  them  if  they  could  not  give  the 
indorsement  of  the  Federation  of  Labor.  They  said  they  did  not  think  there  was 
any  doubt  but  what  they  could.  I  now  want  to  read  you  from  the  Chicago  Federa- 
tionist,  a  labor  paper,  of  the  date  of  April  9,  1897: 

WORKINGMEN    INDORSE    IT — ANTICOLOR    BILL    APPROVED   BY  THE    CHICAGO    FEDERATION 
OF   LABOR COLORED  OLEOMARGARINE  CONDEMNED  AS  A  FRAUD — A   RESOLUTION  PASSED 

AT  LAST  SUNDAY'S  MEETING  INDORSING  THE  FULLER  BILL  is  UNANIMOUS — LABOR  is 

AGAINST  THE  FRAUD. 

The  defenders  of  the  colored  oleomargarine  fraud  have  had  their  last  prop  knocked 
from  under  arguments. 

For  years  they  have  pleaded  for  protection  of  oleomargarine  "in  behalf  of  the 
workingman."  Oleomargarine  was  christened  "the  poor  man's  butter"  by  those 
who  were  aiding  manufacturers  in  making  millions  off  the  same  "  poor  man." 

The  anticolor  bill  was  brought  before  the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  by  the 
legislative  committee  of  that  body  Sunday,  April  4,  by  Chairman  Williams,  who  hag 
claimed  that  large  quantities  of  oleomargarine  were  being  dealt  out  in  the  city  by 
retailers  to  those  who  called  for  butter  and  paid  for  butter.  This  fraud  was  made 
possible,  he  stated,  because  of  the  fact  that  the  substitute  was  made  in  perfect  sem- 
blance of  butter,  and  the  workingman  was  the  chief  victim.  He  explained  that  the 
only  remedy  for  this  fraud  was  the  enactment  of  a  law  which  would  make  it  possible 
for  buyer  and  consumer  to  distinguish  the  compound  whenever  he  saw  it. 

Only  one  delegate  in  the  entire  body  objected  to  the  indorsement  of  the  measure, 
and  after  he  thoroughly  understood  the  question  he  moved  to  make  the  vote  for  its 
adoption  unanimous,  which  was  done. 

The  sentiment  expressed  by  the  different  delegates  to  the  Federation  at  the  close  of 
the  meeting  was  that,  should  a  petition  be  circulated  among  the  army  of  workingmen 
of  Chicago  calling  for  the  passage  of  the  Fuller  anticolor  law,  it  would  meet  with  no 
opposition. 

Then  the  resolution  which  was  passed  at  that  time,  and  which  I  have  in  my  pos- 
session, in  the  city  of  Chicago  reads  as  follows: 

CHICAGO,  April  4, 1897. 
CHARLES  Y.  KNIGHT, 

Secretary  Dairy  Union. 

DEAR  SIR:  At  a  meeting  of  the  Chicago  Federation,  held  on  the  4th  instant,  that 
body  unanimously  indorsed  the  Fuller  bill,  and  requested  all  subordinate  bodies  to 
use  their  utmost  to  secure  its  passage. 

Very  truly,  VICTOR  B.  WILLIAMS, 

Chairman  Legislative  Committee,  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor. 

The  fact  that  not  a  single  delegate  in  that  meeting  cared  enough 
about  the  color  in  oleomargarine  or  oleomargarine  itself  to  oppose  the 
passage  of  the  resolution  we  consider  pretty  good  evidence  that  few 
workingmen  know  when  they  are  buying  oleomargarine  if  they  con- 
sume it,  and  do  not  care  for  the  color  if  they  do  buy  it. 

That  there  is  no  great  demand  for  oleomargarine,  and  as  evidence 
that  it  is  forced  upon  the  public  instead  of  being  demanded  by  the  peo- 
ple, we  submit  the  following  from  the  evidence  of  Isaac  W.  Cleaver, 


856  OLEOMARGARINE. 

of  Philadelphia  (p.  221),  manager  of  the  63  stores  of  the  Acme  Tea 
Company,  of  that  city.     Mr.  Cleaver  said: 

We  are  in  no  way  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  butter;  only  in  the  sale  of  it. 
If  we  could  sell  oleomargarine  legally  and  there  were  a  demand  for  it,  we  would 
just  as  lief  sell  it  as  we  would  butter. 

With  reference  to  whether  or  not  there  is  a  demand  for  it,  I  have  only  this  to  say: 
We  have  a  printed  slip,  with  questions  on  the  slip  which  must  be  answered  every 
week  by  every  manager  in  each  of  our  stores.  One  of  those  questions  is  this:  "Has 
there  been  anything  asked  for  during  the  week  that  we  do  not  keep?  If  so,  what?" 
We  have  yet,  from  all  those  63  stores,  to  have  an  inquiry  for  oleomargarine  or  but- 
terine.  Consequently,  we  are  convinced  that  the  masses  of  the  people  in  Philadel- 
phia do  not  want  oleomargarine  or  they  would  ask  for  it. 

And  Mr.  Cleaver  further  testified  that  they  sold  to  the  masses,  their 
stores  being  what  are  known  as  "  cut-rate"  or  cheap  stores. 

CONSTITUTIONALITY  AND  AIM  OF  THE  10-CENT  TAX. 

There  is  of  course  a  prejudice  against  the  use  of  the  internal-revenue 
tax  for  protective  purposes,  particularly  when  it  is  argued  that  the 
purpose  is  to  entirely  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  the  article 
taxed.  In  this  case  we  claim  that  the  tax  is  being  employed  only  for 
the  purpose  of  turning  into  the  United  States  Treasury  that  portion  of 
the  profits  upon  a  counterfeit  article  which  may  furnish  an  incentive 
for  the  vender  thereof  to  practice  fraud  upon  the  public. 

We  contend  and  believe  that  we  have  established  the  fact  through 
the  testimony  of  food  commissioners  and  others  who  are  in  best  posi- 
tion to  judge  that  at  least  75  per  cent,  if  not  more,  of  the  oleomarga- 
rine produced  goes  to  the  consumer  as  butter  and  at  practically  butter 
prices.  The  evidence  (p.  470)  shows  one  case  of  where  the  manufac- 
turer advised  the  dealer  that  a  brand  of  oleomargarine  quoted  at  18 
cents  per  pound  should  retail  at  25  to  30  cents.  General  experience  is 
that  when  oleomargaine  is  sold  as  butter  it  is  sold  just  a  trifle  under 
butter  prices  as  a  bait  to  draw  custom,  and  in  twenty -five  such  cases 
reported  by  the  Massachusetts  food  commissioner  in  a  statement  filed 
with  this  committee  it  was  shown  that  the  average  price  of  such  oleo- 
margarine sold  as  butter  during  the  year  was  22£  cents  per  pound.  A 
prospectus  of  the  Standard  Butterine  Company,  of  Washington,  filed 
with  this  committee  shows  that  the  average  finished  product  minus  the 
present  2-cent  tax  costs  the  producer  6.92  cents  per  pound.  Add  10 
cents  to  this  as  the  tax  under  the  Grout  bill  and  the  cost  is  brought 
up  to  16.92  cents  per  pound.  At  an  average  price  of  22i  cents  the 
retailer  and  manufacturer  would  have  left  between  them  a  pro  fit  of 
5.58  cents,  and  could  still  sell  the  product  at  the  same  price  to  the 
consumer  he  is  now  paying  for  it.  This  is  about  the  profit  made  by 
the  manufacturer  and  retailer  of  butter. 

Under  these  circumstances,  can  it  be  said  the  10-cent  tax  is  a  tax 
that  will  destroy  ?  If  so,  how  2 

Only  in  this  way:  These  goods,  now  sold  at  22J  cents,  are  sold  as 
butter.  This  is  forbidden  by  the  State  laws.  The  State  laws  of  32 
leading  States  also  forbid  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  sem- 
blance of  butter.  The  present  profit  of  13.58  cents  per  pound  on 
oleomargarine  (costing,  with  the  2-cent  tax,  8.92  cents  per  pound) 
when  sold  as  butter  at  22^  cents  is  what  causes  its  sale  as  such.  The 
additional  8  cents  will  stop  that  fraudulent  sale,  of  course,  by  taking 
away  8  cents  of  the  profit  in  the  transaction  and  bringing  the  business 
down  to  a  basis  where  the  dealer  will,  because  of  the  normal  profit 


OLEOMARGARINE.  857 

only,  be  as  willing  to  sell  butter  to  those  who  call  for  it  as  he  will 
oleomargarine.  He  will  not  take  the  chance  of  prosecutions  under 
the  State  laws  unless  there  is  some  incentive. 

Therefore  the  10-cent  tax  will  act  merely  as  an  agent  to  destroy 
that  fraudulent  incentive.  A  very  small  proportion  of  the  people  who 
really  know  what  they  are  buying  will  be  put  to  any  greater  expense 
in  their  purchases,  because  they  are  few  who  knowingly  buy  the 
artirle,  compared  with  those  who  are  defrauded. 

And  in  the  case  of  hotels  and  restaurants,  the  public  gets  absolutely 
no  benefit  from  the  economy  of  their  proprietors  in  foisting  a  coun- 
terfeit upon  their  guests.  Whatever  saving  there  is  in  the  matter 
goes  absolutely  into  the  pockets  of  the  proprietors,  while  the  guest 
pays  the  same  price  he  always  did  for  his  entertainment,  and  the  dairy- 
man loses  the  market  for  that  trade,  which  in  the  aggregate  is  enormous 
throughout  the  United  States. 

In  this  way  we  believe  that  the  10-cent  tax  will  not  destroy  any 
legitimate  business,  but  only  that  part  of  the  traffic  which  is  fraudu- 
lent. On  the  other  hand,  the  reduction  of  the  tax  from  2  cents  to 
one-fourth  cent  upon  the  uncolored  article  will  give  the  makers  an 
opportunity  to  furnish  those  who  really  desire  the  article  for  nourish- 
ment and  economy's  sake  oleomargarine  at  a  much  lower  price. 

But,  even  should  it  be  considered  that  the  tax  would  destroy  to  a 
large  extent  the  production  and  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine,'  what 
do  the  authorities  say  of  the  use  of  the  taxing  power  in  such  cases'^ 

Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  the  case  of  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  said: 

That  the  power  to  tax  involves  the  power  to  destroy;  that  the  power  to  destroy 
may  defeat  and  render  useless  the  power  to  create;  that  there  is  a  plain  repugnance 
in  conferring  on  one  Government  a  power  to  control  the  constitutional  measures  of 
another,  which  other,  with  respect  to  those  very  measures,  is  declared  to  be  supreme 
over  that  which  exerts  the  control,  are  propositions  not  to  be  denied. 

Justice  Story,  in  his  work  on  the  Constitution  (Book  1,  pp.  677, 
678),  says: 

Nothing  is  more  clear  from  the  history  of  nations  than  the  fact  that  the  taxing 
power  is  very  often  applied  for  other  purposes  than  revenue.  It  is  often  applied  as 
a  virtual  prohibition;  sometimes  to  banish  a  noxious  article  of  consumption,  some- 
times as  a  suppression  of  particular  employments. 

Justice  Woodbury,  in  the  case  of  Pierce  et  al.  v.  New  Hampshire 
(5  Wheat.,  608),  said: 

But  I  go  further  on  this  point  than  some  of  the  courts  and  wish  to  meet  the  case 
in  front  and  in  its  worst  bearings.  If,  as  in  the  view  of  some,  these  license  laws  are 
in  the  nature  of  partial  or  entire  prohibitions  to  sell  certain  articles  as  being  danger- 
ous to  public  health  and  morals,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  their  conflict  with  the 
Constitution  would  by  any  means  be  clear.  Taking  for  granted  that  the  real  design 
in  passing  them  is  the  avowed  one  (prohibition),  they  would  appear  entirely  defen- 
sible as  a  matter  of  right  thoughgprohibiting  sales. 

In  Walker's  Science  of  Wealth  this  rule  of  taxation  is  also  general: 

The  heaviest  taxes  should  be  imposed  upon  those  commodities  the  consumption  of 
which  is  especially  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  people. 

Desty,  in  his  work  on  Taxation,  says: 

One  purpose  of  taxation  sometimes  is  to  discourage  a  business,  and  perhaps  put  it 
out  of  existence,  and  it  is  taxed  without  any  idea  of  protection  attending  the  burden. 

The  authorities  are  very  clear  on  all  these  points,  and  particularly 
on  the  right  of  Congress  to  use  its  discretion  in  the  amount  of  tax 
levied  upon  any  article. 


858  OLEOMAKGAKINE. 

Cooley  on  Taxation  (p.  5)  says: 

Everything  to  which  the  legislative  power  extends  may  be  the  subject  of  taxation, 
whether  it  be  person  or  property,  or  possession,  franchise  or  privilege,  or  occupation 
or  right.  Nothing  but  express  constitutional  limitation  upon  legislative  authority 
can  exclude  anything  to  which  the  authority  extends  from  the  grasp  of  the  tax- 
ing power  if  the  legislature  in  its  discretion  shall  at  any  time  select  it  for  revenue 
purposes. 

And  not  only  is  the  power  unlimited  in  its  reach  as  to  subjects,  but  in  its  very 
nature  it  acknowledges  no  limit,  and  may  be  carried  to  any  extent  which  the  Gov- 
ernment may  find  expedient.  It  may,  therefore,  be  employed  again  and  again  upon 
the  same  subjects,  even  to  the  extent  of  exhaustion  and  destruction,  and  may  thus 
become  in  its  exercise  a  power  to  destroy.  If  the  power  be  threatened  with  abuse, 
security  must  be  found  in  the  responsibility  of  the  legislature  which  imposes  the  tax 
to  the  constituency  who  are  to  pay  it.  The  judiciary  can  not  afford  redress  against 
oppressive  taxation,  so  long  as  the  legislature  in  imposing  it  shall  keep  within  the 
limits  of  legislative  authority  and  violates  no  express  provision  of  the  Constitution. 
The  necessity  for  imposing  it  addresses  itself  to  the  legislative  discretion,  and  it  is  or 
may  be  an  urgent  necessity  which  will  admit  of  no  property  or  other  conflicting 
right  in  the  citizen  while  it  remains  unsatisfied. 

The  Supreme  Court,  in  McCulloch  v.  Maryland  (4  Wheat. ,  428),  says: 

It  is  admitted  that  the  power  of  taxing  the  people  and  their  property  is  essential 
to  the  very  existence  of  the  Government  and  may  be  legitimately  exercised  to  the 
utmost  extent  to  which  the  Government  may  choose  to  carry  it.  The  people  give  to 
their  Government  the  right  of  taxing  themselves  and  their  property;  and  as  the 
exigencies  of  the  Government  can  not  be  limited,  they  prescribe  no  limits  to  the 
exercise  of  this  right,  resting  confidently  on  the  interest  of  the  legislator  and  on  the 
influence  of  the  constituents  over  their  representatives  to  guard  them  against  its 
abuse. 

In  8  Wall.,  548,  is  reported  the  opinion  in  the  Veazie  bank  case 
wherein  the  court  was  appealed  to  in  an  effort  to  have  the  10  per  cent 
tax  on  State  bank  circulation  set  aside.  In  this  case  the  court's  rea- 
soning was: 

It  is  insisted,  however,  that  the  tax  in  the  case  before  us  is  excessive,  and  so 
excessive  as  to  indicate  a  purpose  to  destroy  the  franchise  of  the  bank,  and  it  is 
therefore  beyond  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress. 

The  first  answer  to  this  is  that  the  judiciary  can  not  prescribe  to  the  legislative 
departments  of  the  Government  limitations  upon  its  acknowledged  powers.  The 
power  to  tax  may  be  exercised  oppressively  upon  persons,  but  the  responsibility  of 
the  legislature  is  not  to  the  courts,  but  to  the  people  by  whom  its  members  are  elected. 
So  if  a  particular  tax  bears  heavily  upon  a  corporation,  or  a  class  of  corporations,  it 
can  not  for  that  reason  only  be  pronounced  contrary  to  the  Constitution. 

In  3  Gill.,  28,  is  quoted  the  following: 

*  *  *  we  are  not  driven  to  the  perplexing  inquiry  so  unfit  for  the  judicial 
department,  What  degree  of  taxation  is  the  legitimate  use  and  what  degree  may 
amount  to  abuse  of  power? 

And  further  along,  on  page  28: 

On  the  contrary,  when  the  Supreme  Court  has  been  required  to  speak  upon  this 
subject  they  have  discountenanced  the  notion  of  implied  restriction. 

And  from  9  Wall.,  41  to  45: 

It  is  true  that  the  power  of  Congress  to  tax  is  a  very  extensive  power.  It  is  given 
in  the  Constitution  with  only  one  exception  and  with  only  two  qualifications.  Con- 
gress can  not  tax  exports  and  it  must  impose  direct  taxes  by  rule  of  uniformity. 
Thus  limited,  and  thus  only,  it  reaches  every  subject,  and  may  be  exercised  at 
discretion. 

We  reiterate,  the  10-cent  tax  is  only  directed  at  fraud  and  that 
quality  of  an  article  already  condemned  by  the  people,  who,  through 
their  State  legislatures,  have  made  every  possible  effort  to  suppress  it. 
And  it  seems  to  us  that  if  there  ever  was  an  excuse  for  the  use  of  the 


OLEOMAEGAEINE.  859 

taxing  power  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  people  through  the  turn- 
ing into  the  Treasury  profits  which  are  now  an  incentive  to  defraud, 
we  have  it  here,  particularly  when  the  very  use  of  the  taxing  power 
in  the  original  law  of  1886  is  and  has  for  years  been  used  as  a  basis 
for  the  defeat  of  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  the  various  States, 
through  the  standing  such  taxation  has  given  oleomargarine  as  an 
article  of  interstate  commerce. 

A  BRIEF  ARGUMENT  IN  FAVOR  OF  H.  R.  3717,  KNOWN  AS  THE  GROUT 

BILL. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Agricul- 
ture: If  one  will  read  the  reports  of  decisions  from  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court,  which  constitute  the  controlling  law  of  our  country 
upon  the  subjects  therein  reviewed,  he  will  notice  that  the  question 
most  frequently  discussed,  and  up  to  this  time  never  settled,  is,  What 
constitutes  a  valid  exercise  of  the  police  power  by  the  several  States? 
And  the  necessity  for  the  legislation  contained  in  this  bill,  familiarly 
called  the  Grout  bill,  lies  in  the  fact  that  notwithstanding  the  police 
features  contained  in  nineteen  sections  of  the  act  of  1886,  known  also 
as  the  national  oleomargarine  law,  policing  by  the  several  States,  the 
District  of  Columbia,  and  the  Territories  must  continue  so  long  as 
oleomargarine  is  manufactured  as  at  present  and  transported  from 
State  to  State,  if  the  welfare  of  the  dairy  is  to  be  considered  and  the 
people  protected  from  fraud,  actual  or  potential. 

What  can  the  States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia  do,  how- 
ever, in  this  regard  and  in  this  direction  but  strike  down  the  retailers, 
unless  Congress  limits  the  effect  of  the  commerce  clause  of  the  Consti- 
tution, as  provided  for  in  section  1  of  this  bill,  in  view  of  the  diversity 
of  opinion  of  the  several  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court?  It  is  rather 
the  rule  now  than  the  exception,  when  a  case  involving  interstate  com- 
merce and  police  power  is  before  the  Supreme  Court,  to  see  the  jus- 
tices disagree  and  a  dissenting  opinion  filed.  Examine  Liesy  v.  Hardin, 
135  U.  S.,  107  and  125;  Plumley  v.  Mass.,  155  U.  S.,  462  and  480;  Geer 
v.  Conn.,  161  U.  S.,  521,  535,  and  542;  Schollenberger  v.  Penna.,  171 
U.  S.,  6  and  25,  and  you  will  no  longer  marvel  that  judges  of  the  United 
States  district  courts  entertain  varying  opinions,  nor  that  the  appellate 
courts  of  the  States  are  not  in  harmony  on  such  questions.  (In  re 
Scheitlin  (Missouri),  Jan.  8,  1900;  in  re  Brundage  (Minn.),  Jan.  12, 
1896,  Fed.  Rep.,  963.) 

Therefore,  in  order  that  there  may  be  a  uniform  system  of  laws  reg- 
ulating traffic  in  oleomargarine,  and  that  force  and  effect  may  be  given 
to  the  enactments  of  thirty-two  States,  as  well  as  others  that  may  pass 
such  laws  later  on,  and  to  carry  out  the  views  of  Justice  Harlan,  as 
expressed  on  pages  46T  and  468,  155  U.  S. — the  Plumley  case — your 
favorable  report  is  requested. 

I  quote  from  Justice  Harlan's  opinion  in  the  Plumley  case: 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  statute  of  Massachusetts,  which  is  alleged  to  be  repug- 
nant to  the  commerce  clause  of  the  Constitution,  does  not  prohibit  the  manufacture 
or  sale  of  all  oleomargarine,  but  only  such  as  is  colored  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter 
produced  from  pure,  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  such  milk.  If  free  from  color- 
ation or  ingredient  that  "causes  it  to  look  like  butter,"  the  right  to  sell  it  "in  a  sep- 
arate and  distinct  form,  and  in  such  manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real 
character,"  is  neither  restricted  nor  prohibited.  *  *  *  The  statute  seeks  to  sup- 
press false  pretenses  and  to  promote  fair  dealing  in  the  sale  of  an  article  of  food.  It 
compels  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  for  what  it  really  is,  by  preventing  its  sale  for  what 


860  OLEOMARGARINE. 

it  is  not.  *  *  *  Does  the  freedom  of  commerce  among  the  States  demand  a  recog- 
nition of  the  right  to  practice  a  deception  upon  the  public  in  the  sale  of  any  articles, 
even  those  that  may  have  become  the  subject  of  trade  in  different  parts  of  the 
country? 

The  Grout  bill  in  its  proviso  affords  the  same  privilege  to  dealers  in 
oleomargarine  that  the  statute  of  Massachusetts  afforded,  and  only 
gives  vitality  and  power  to  laws  of  the  same  liberality  of  construction. 

The  substitute  bill,  known  as  the  Wadsworth  or  the  minority  bill,  is 
the  old  attempt  at  regulating  presented  in  a  different  form;  all  of  the 
safeguards  against  deception  and  fraud  can  be  broken  down  with  the 
same  ease  that  other  regulating  laws  have  been  violated;  protection 
can  only  come  by  taking  away  the  color,  or  if  the  manufacturer  sees 
fit  to  pay  the  10-cent  tax  for  the  privilege  of  imitating  yellow  butter, 
then  the  difference  in  price  being  greatly  reduced  the  inducement  to 
defraud  is  considerably  lessened.  The  true  delight  from  eating  butter 
comes  to  the  palate,  not  the  eye,  and  pure  butter  by  any  other  color 
than  yellow  would  taste  as  sweet.  Why  does  this  not  hold  true  of 
oleomargarine? 

JAMES  HEWES, 
President  Produce  Exchange, 
Vice- President  National  Dairy  Union. 


BRIEF  OF  TESTIMONY  IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  GROUT  BILL 

(H.  R.  3717). 


[By  Mr.  SPEINGER.] 

[The  figures  refer  to  pages  of  the  Hearings  of  the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture  and  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Agriculture  and  Forestry.  H.  H.  will  stand  for  House  Hearings  and  S.  H.  for  Senate 
Hearings.] 

Oleomargarine  as  a  food  pro'duct  is  wholesome,  palatable,  and  nutritious:  S.  H.,  17, 
18, 19, 25,  48,  49,  65,  70,  72,  96,  97, 205,  206,  207, 208, 209, 261, 262, 337-338, 351,  397, 
514.  H.  H. ,  694,  703,  713,  716. 

Expert  opinions  of  oleomargarines:  S.H.,85,86.  H.  H.,  694,  712,  713,  714,  717,  720, 
721,  765,  766,  767,  768,  769,  770,  771,  772,  773,  774,  775,  776,  777,  778,  782,  783,  791, 
797,  809, 810,  811. 

Ingredients  of  oleomargarine  are  farm  products,  and  no  unwholesome  articles  are 
used:  S.  H. ,  41, 54,  55,  56,  88,  202.  H.  H. ,  753-758  (Commissioner  Wilson's  Inves- 
tigation), 706,  713,  714,  716,  720,  721,  800,  801. 

The  bill  would  destroy  oleomargarine  industry:  S.  H.,  14,  37, 38, 39, 65, 174, 271, 274, 
303,  352, 353, 358, 382, 391, 509.  H.  H.,  750,  784,  792,  793. 

Grout  bill  is  unconstitutional:  S.  H.,  93-107  (Mr.  Springer's  argument).  S.  H.,  392- 
411  (argument  of  Mr.  Henry  E.  Davis,  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  attorney  for  the 
Standard  Butterine  Company). 

Consumption  of  oleomargarine  in  the  States:  S.  H.,  90-91,  415  (Secretary  Wilson's 
remarks) . 

Oleomargarine  is  a  proper  subject  of  interstate  and  foreign  commerce,  and  its  manu- 
facture is  a  lawful  pursuit:  S.  H.,  95, 96, 97, 98,  396. 

Grout  bill  not  a  revenue  measure:  S.  H.,16,  17,43,106,561  (Secretary  Gage's  state- 
ment). 

Coloring  matter  is  used  both  in  making  butter  and  in  manufacturing  oleomargarine 
for  the  purpose  of  catering  to  the  tastes  of  consumers:  S.  H.,  22, 33, 39, 40, 44,  69, 
262,  263,  272,  309,  310,  316, 335,  336,  347,  355.  H.  H.,  704,  705,  708,  709,  714,  763, 
779,  793,  794. 

Live-stock  interests  injuriously  affected:  S.  H.,  60,61,62,  63,66-67,  68,  71,  72,  77-78, 
79, 80-116, 117,  118, 119,  120, 121, 182, 183.  H.  H.,  653, 654,  655-660,  661, 673,  674, 
675,  676,  677,  678,  679,  680,  681,  682,  683,  732,  733,  734,  735,  739,  740,  741,  742,  743, 
744,  745,  747,  748,  749,  788,  789,  790,  799. 

Cotton-seed  oil  industry  injured:  S.  H.,  314, 315,  316, 318,  320,  321,  322, 323,  324,  325, 
326,  327,  343,  344,  345,  346,  347,  483,  484,  485,  486, 487.  H.  H.,  663,  664,  665,  666, 
692,  693,  694, 695,  723,  724,  725,  726,  727,  728,  729,  730,  731,  732,  736,  737,  738. 

Labor  organizations  opposed  to  bill:  S.  H.,  307,  308,  309,  310,  311,  312,  314,  319,  320, 
350,  351,  352,  353,  354,  357,  359,  360,  361,  362,  504,  505,  506,  507,  508,  509,  510. 
H.H.,706. 

Alleged  frauds  in  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter:  S.  H.,  19,  20,  27, 28, 29,  32, 33,  34,  35, 
40,  201,  202.  270,  274, 275,  292,  297,  301, 302,  383,  387,  562,  563, 564, 565.  H.  H.,  704, 
705,  717,  750,  751,  752,  753,  754,  755,  756,  757,  758,  759,  761. 

Process  butter:  S.  H.,  22,  29,  30,  31,  39,  108,  109,  266,  267,  338  (Professor  Alvord's 
views),  339,  387,  388,  389,  390,  518.  H.  H.,  719,  722,  723. 

Butter  interests  not  injured  by  competition  with  oleomargarine:  S.  H.,  114, 171,  172, 
173,  174,  175,  176,  177,  179,  180,  202,  203,  215,  216,  264,  268,  304,  308,  337,  523. 
H.  H.,  716,784,785,790,791. 

Substitute  bill:  S.  H.,  305,  398,  366,  568,569  (statement  of  Mr.  Wadsworth,  chairman 
of  House  Committee  on  Agriculture).  H.  H.,  750,  759. 

Substitute  bill  would  reduce  fraudulent  sales  of  oleomargarine  for  butter  to  an  infini- 
tesimal amount.  (Testimony  of  Secretary  Gage) :  S.  H.,  565, 566, 567.  H.  H. ,  274. 

Argument  of  Hon.  John  S.  Williams,  of  Mississippi.  Reference  is  made  to  the  able 
argument  of  Hon.  John  S.  Williams,  M.  C.,  from  Mississippi,  in  opposition  to  the 
Grout  bill  before  the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture,  May  26,  1900. 

861 


862  OLEOMARGARINE. 

PETITIONS   AGAINST   PASSAGE  OF  THE   GROUT   BILL. 

National  Live  Stock  Association:  S.  H.,  78,  79, 80.     H.  H.,  657. 

South  St. Paul  Live  Stock  Exchange:  S.  H.,  56, 57. 

Texas  Cotton-Seed  Crushers'  Association:  S.  H.,  58,  59. 

Sioux  City  Live  Stock  Exchange:  S.  H.,  60. 

Cotton  oil  superintendents  from  South  and  North  Carolina:  S.  H.,  60. 

Kansas  City  (Kans.)  Mercantile  Club:  S.  H.,  61, 62. 

Kansas  City  (Mo.)  Commercial  Club:  S.  H.,  62,  63. 

Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange:  S.  H.,  71,  72. 

National  Live  Stock  Exchange,  Chicago:  S.  H.,  185, 186. 

Holland  Butterine  Company,  of  Pittsburg,  Pa.:  S.  H.,  199. 

Cattle  Raisers'  Association  of  Texas:  H.  H.,  653,  654. 

The  South  St.  Joseph  Live  Stock  Exchange,  South  St.  Joseph,  Mo.:  H.  H.,  654, 655. 

The  South  Omaha  Live  Stock  Exchange:  H.  H.,  739,  741,  742. 

Merchants  of  Kansas  City,  Mo.:  H.  H.,  502. 


REVIEW  OF  THE  EVIDENCE  PRESENTED  BEFORE  THE  HOUSE 
AND  SENATE  AGRICULTURAL  COMMITTEES  ON  H.  R.  3717. 

[Prepared  by  CHARLES  E.  SCHELL,  at  the  request  of  the  Senate  committee.] 

The  COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE  AND  FORESTRY, 

United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  O. 

GENTLEMEN:  In  response  to  a  request  by  members  of  your  body  that 
I  furnish  a  brief  resume  of  the  evidence  presented  by  the  friends  and 
the  opponents  of  the  Grout  bill  I  will  endeavor  so  to  do,  speaking, 
however,  only  for  my  own  clients.  In  the  beginning,  allow  me  to  state 
that  in  my  opinion  the  full  enormity  and  infamy  of  the  bill  in  question 
can  not  be  comprehended  properly  by  any  member  of  this  committee 
without  carefully  reading  everything  that  has  been  offered  on  both 
sidss,  and  I  would  earnestly  urge  that  this  be  done.  There  has  been 
but  little  repetition,  and  the  principal  part  of  that  has  been  in  the 
memorials  from  live  stock  and  cotton  growers  associations  whose  inter- 
ests are  sufficiently  large  that  a  little  repetition  as  a  means  of  more 
fully  impressing  the  importance  of  their  claims  would  not  be  amiss. 

In  calling  attention  to  the  estimates  of  probable  loss  to  the  live  stock 
and  cotton-seed  oil  interests  should  this  bill  become  a  law,  I  wish  to 
remind  the  committee  of  what  appeared  during  the  hearings  to  the 
effect  that  some  of  the  estimates  of  losses  took  into  consideration  only 
the  actual  net  loss  by  reason  of  the  destruction  of  the  local  oleomar- 
garine industry;  others  computed  the  loss  by  taking  into  consideration 
the  total  output  for  the  purpose  of  manufacture  of  oleomargarine, 
both  at  home  and  abroad;  while  others,  and  perhaps  the  most  accurate 
computations,  were  based  upon  the  loss  that  would  accrue  from  lack 
of  a  home  market  and  by  reason  of  the  effect  upon  the  general  market 
and  the  export  trade  by  reason  of  the  official  condemnation  which  would 
be  placed  upon  the  various  products  and  would  necessarily  affect,  if 
not  entirely  destroy,  the  export  trade.  As  was  fully  shown  before 
the  committee  the  actual  loss  can  not  be  estimated  by  merely  taking 
the  difference  between  the  price  of  the  materials  for  the  purpose  of 
manufacturing  oleomargarine  and  the  price  of  the  same  materials 
still  retained  in  their  original  uses.  Their  return  to  former  uses 
would  necessarily  reduce  the  existing  price  of  the  materials  still  so 
used,  and  the  effect  of  a  total  destruction  of  one  market  for  a  product, 
however  small  that  market  might  be,  compared  with  the  entire  put- 
put,  would  be  more  vast  than  the  most  expert  board  of  trade  manipu- 
lator could  estimate.  However,  the  estimates  from  the  various  sec- 
tions as  a  result  of  different  experiences  and  different  evidences  suffi- 
ciently coincide  that  a  fairly  accurate  idea  can  be  established  as  to  the 
minimum  loss  even  if  no  one  can  estimate  the  total  loss  that  this  leg- 
islation would  bring  about. 

In  the  interests  of  cotton-seed  oil  we  first  have  Fred  Oliver,  begin- 
ning at  page  81  of  the  hearing  before  the  House  committee,  and  I  earn- 

863 


864  OLEOMARGAEINE. 

estly  recommend  the  reading  of  the  entire  statement,  especially  that 
part  in  which  he  estimates  an  annual  loss  of  $65,000,000  to  his  people 
and  to  the  elemental  wealth  of  the  country  should  this  bill  become  a 
law.  His  statements  and  estimates  are  sustained  by  numerous  others 
who  appeared  before  this  committee  and  the  House  committee  for  the 
cotton  industry,  and  all  of  whom  produce  additional  interesting  points 
showing  their  individual  reasons  why  their  industry  should  not  be  leg- 
islated against.  F 
of  Arkansas,  who 
Helena  they  have : 
and  which  four  mills  support  800  people.  I  would  especially  ask  the 
committee  to  read  in  full  the  argument  of  Judge  Aldredge,  at  page  109 
of  the  House  hearings,  in  which  he  presents  plain  facts  and  dry  statis- 
tics in  a  very  interesting  manner;  and  also  the  statements  of  Mr.  Con- 
ley,  at  page  322  of  the  Senate  hearings. 

*The  first  presentation  of  the  cattle  growers'  interests  was  by  Mr. 
Cowan,  of  Fort  Worth,  Tex.  (House  Hearings,  p.  TO,  et  seq.),  whose 
particular  client,  The  Texas  Cattle  Raisers'  Association,  showed  a 
membership  of  1,200  cattlemen  and  a  property  interest  of  $100,000,000, 
but  who  also  represented  other  identical  interests,  all  of  whom  figured 
a  probable  loss  in  the  value  of  their  cattle  of  from  $3  to  $4  per  head. 
He  was  followed  by  Mr.  Tomlinson,  representing  the  Chicago  Live 
Stock  Exchange,  who  agreed  with  him  as  to  the  loss  of  from  $3  to  $4 
per  head  on  cattle.  There  were  others  before  both  committees  who 
shared  these  views.  However,  the  statement  most  in  detail  on  this 
branch  of  the  subject  was  by  Mr.  John  McCoy  (House  Hearings,  p. 
93),  who  figures  the  result  of  the  passage  of  this  bill  as  a  net  annual 
loss  to  the  farmers  and  stock  raisers  of  the  country  of  $62,950,434. 
Mr.  McCoy's  estimates  are  very  conservative  and  were  to  a  limited 
degree  explained  before  this  committee  at  pages  64  to  72  of  the  Senate 
committee  hearings.  At  page  68,  Senate  Hearings,  he  read  from  an 
agricultural  paper  to  show  the  increase  in  the  value  of  milch  cows,  of 
milk,  of  butter,  and  of  cheese. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Hake,  of  South  Omaha,  Nebr.  (House  Hearings,  p.  1ST), 
makes  a  computation  slightly  varying,  but  substantially  the  same  as 
the  others,  and  setting  out  the  local  conditions;  also  showing,  from 
statistics  taken  from  the  Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue  and  the  Agri- 
cultural Department,  that  for  the  ten  years  ending  June  30,  1899,  the 
butter  industry  had  increased  more  rapidly  than  had  the  butterine 
industry.  Mr.  Thompson,  president  of  the  Live  Stock  Exchange  of 
Chicago  (Senate  Hearings,  p.  182),  figured  the  loss  on  each  head  of 
cattle  as  the  result  of  the  passage  of  this  bill  at  $3.42,  and  sustains  the 
statements  and  computations  of  his  predecessors  before  both  commit- 
tees. Judge  Springer  presented  to  your  committee  (Senate  Hearings, 
p.  78)  the  memorial  of  the  National  Live  Stock  Association,  which 
estimates  a  loss  of  from  $3  to  $4  per  head  on  the  cattle  of  the  country 
as  a  result  of  the  proposed  class  legislation.  He  has  compiled  numer- 
ous statistics  and  has  very  ably  treated  all  the  legal  phases  of  the  ques- 
tion. The  argument  of  Henry  E.  Davis,  at  page  392,  is  also  a  very 
able  presentation  from  a  legal  standpoint. 

The  statement  of  Col.  John  S.  Hobbs,  editor  of  the  National  Pro- 
yisioner,  of  New  York  and  Chicago  (House  Hearings,  p.  130),  is  full  of 
information  on  this  subject,  and  especially  his  detailed  statement  of 
the  workings  of  a  butterine  factory,  at  page  138. 


OLEOMAEGAKINE.  865 

The  statement  of  Professor  Wiley  (House  Hearings,  p.  186)  will  be 
read  with  interest  by  any  member  wishing  to  fully  inform  himself  as 
to  the  chemistry  of~  the  article,  and  the  statements  of  Internal  Rev- 
enue Commissioner  Wilson  (House  Hearings,  p.  167  et  seq.)  should 
have  great  weight  in  deciding  this  question.  At  page  168  he  specific- 
ally recommends  a  regulation  similar  to  that  incorporated  in  the 
Wadsworth  substitute  bill,  and  at  page  182  considers  it  will  meet  the 
requirements  of  preventing  fraud  "in  the  fullest  possible  way."  He 
commends  the  article  as  at  present  manufactured  and  the  dealers  gen- 
erally as  giving  his  department  no  particular  trouble.  At  page  168 
he  pronounces  the  10-cent  tax  prohibitive  and  thinks  it  would  defeat 
the  end  of  deriving  any  revenue  from  it. 

The  most  important  of  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  have  been 
before  you,  either  personally  or  by  counsel,  and  tell  the  same  story  in 
a  slightly  different  manner.  They  unite  in  claiming  cleanliness  and 
wholesomeness  in  their  product,  in  obeying  the  laws,  in  inviting  a  full 
investigation  of  their  every  act,  and  in  offering  their  assistance  in  pass- 
ing and  enforcing  any  law  which  will  reduce  the  fraud  to  a  minimum, 
in  denying  the  charges  that  they  connive  at  the  alleged  fraud  of  the 
retailer  or  that  they  defend  him  for  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter, 
and  in  insisting  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  market  uncolored  oleo- 
margarine, and  that  to  be  compelled  to  abandon  the  use  of  color  would 
mean  the  total  destruction  of  the  industry  and  an  abandonment  of  their 

Elants.     A  strong  presentation  of  the  case,  from  both  a  practical  and 
jgal  standpoint,  was  made  by  Mr.  Gardner  early  in  the  hearing  before 
this  committee,  and  I  would  earnestly  recommend  that  his  article  be 
given  a  second  reading  before  taking  the  committee  vote  on  this 
subject. 

MERITS  AND    DEMERITS  OF  THE    BILL  ACCORDING    TO  THE    TESTIMONY. 

Now,  as  to  the  merits  of  the  respective  sides  from  the  evidence 
produced. 

Briefly  stated,  the  friends  of  the  bill  base  their  claim  on — 

Alleged  public  sentiment  in  its  favor. 

Alleged  fraud  in  competition  and  on  consumers. 

Threatened  absolute  destruction  of  the  dairy  industry. 

Failure  of  state  legislation. 

Nonenforcement  of  existing  revenue  laws  governing  retailers. 

The  opponents  of  the  bill  deny  all  this,  and  claim  that  the  bill  is — 

1.  Dishonest  in  name  and  in  purpose. 

2.  Class  legislation. 

3.  An  exercise  of  police  power. 

4.  Destruction  by  taxation. 

5.  Confiscation  of  property  without  due  process  of  law. 

6.  Delegation  of  control  of  interstate  commerce. 

And  the  bill  is  dishonest  in  that  it  is  not  what  it  purports  to  be  nor 
what  its  friends  claim  for  it.  They  admit  that  under  the  guise  of  a 
revenue  measure  it  is  an  exercise  of  police  power  for  the  aUeged  pur- 
pose of  preventing  fraud  and  regulating  competition.  But  the  testi- 
mony shows  that  it  is  for  the  actual  purpose  of  destroying  one  industry 
in  the  interest  of  another. 

It  is  class  legislation  of  the  most  vicious  kind.  That  it  is  unconsti- 
tutional is  not  disputed,  but  they  depend  upon  the  unwillingness  of 
S.  Rep.  2043 55 


866  OLEOMARGARINE. 

the  courts  to  inquire  into  the  motive  of  an  exercise  of  the  taxing 
power. 

First,  regarding  their  claim  of  a  united  public  sentiment,  I  will 
request  the  committee  to  exercise  those  means  of  knowledge  which 
Senator  Dolliver  says  the  members  possess  to  a  larger  degree  than  any- 
one else  and  ascertain  to  what  extent  the  various  communications  with 
which  the  Senators  have  been  favored  have  been  actually  good-faith 
representations  of  the  senders,  and  to  what  extent  they  have  been  the 
results  of  requests  emanating  from  lobbyists  or  from  dairy  and  cream- 
ery journals,  whose  means  of  support  consist  largely  in  selling  gold 
bricks  to  their  subscribers  and  who  create  discontent  among  the  farmers 
and  then  get  employed  to  correct  the  evils  at  whatever  contribution 
they  can  levy,  from  50  cents  up.  (House  Hearings,  p,  62.) 

I  will  also  call  attention  to  the  analysis  of  the  authorized  representa- 
tion of  record  of  the  gentlemen  standing  most  prominently  before  the 
committee  as  favoring  this  measure,  as  shown  at  pages  279,  282,  283, 
and  304  of  the  hearings  before  the  Senate  committee.  Also,  to  some  of 
the  means  by  which  these  various  letters  have  been  brought  about,  as 
shown  in  the  statements  at  page  198  of  the  House  hearings.  Also,  to 
the  statement  of  Mr.  Knight,  on  pages  44  and  45  of  the  House  Hear- 
ings and  pages  472,  473,  and  519  of  the  Senate  Hearings,  in  which  he 
told  how  he  obtained  indorsements  from  Cincinnati  butter  men,  and 
how  he  had  aimed  to  get  the  labor  organizations  arrayed  on  his  side 
of  the  question,  and  after  having  promises  from  some  of  the  members 
of  a  certain  labor  union  his  first  notification  of  the  results  of  his 
efforts  was  a  resolution  in  which  the  said  union  had  opposed  the  pas- 
sage of  the  bill.  This  ball  set  rolling  by  himself,  so  far  as  there  is 
any  record,  without  any  other  incentive  than  the  fact  that  the  subject 
was  before  Congress,  has  been  the  means  of  the  protest  of  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  laboring  men  all  over  the  country,  the  representatives 
of  some  of  whom  appeared  personally  (Senate  Hearings,  pp.  307,  310, 
350,  and  508)  and  in  other  instances  your  committee  has  been  memo- 
rialized, and  in  numerous  instances  of  which  I  know  no  steps  have 
been  taken  other  than  to  merely  pass  condemnatory  resolutions.  The 
workingmen  as  a  class,  as  well  as  every  consumer  of  whom  there  is 
any  evidence  in  the  record,  are  unanimous  against  the  passage  of  this 
bill.  I  asked  repeatedly  during  the  hearings  if  any  case  had  ever 
been  brought  on  complaint  of  a  consumer,  but  no  case  was  cited  nor 
was  a  single  protest  from  a  consumer  presented. 

The  allegations  of  fraud  in  the  sale  of  the  product  have  been  sweep- 
ing. According  to  Governor  Hoard,  "The  business  is  based  from 
manufacture  to  sale  on  wrong  and  illegitimate  methods."  The  dealer 
is  accused  of  selling  practically  all  of  the  oleomargarine  he  handles  for 
butter  to  a  long-suffering  public;  the  manufacturer  and  wholesaler  are 
accused  of  furnishing  to  him  all  sorts  of  encouragement  and  financial 
backing  in  carrying  out  his  fraudulent  undertaking;  but  the  only  testi- 
mony that  is  worth  a  moment's  consideration  that  has  been  offered  in 
connection  with  this  wholesale  claim  of  fraud  was  the  evidence  from 
Philadelphia,  which  would  probably  have  stood  the  test  of  investiga- 
tion, but  which  was  brought  about  by  the  peculiar  condition  of  the 
Pennsylvania  laws  and  the  Philadelphia  situation.  The  few  cases  from 
Chicago  wherein  retailers  did  not  comply  as  closely  as  they  should 
with  the  revenue  provisions  were  no  evidence  of  the  true  condition  of 
things  in  Chicago.  The  charges  were  confined  to  one  section  and 


OLEOMAKGARINE.  867 

largely  to  one  Broadwell.  Nobody  disputes  but  what  there  are  some 
wicked  people  in  the  retail  oleomargarine  business  the  same  as  in  any- 
thing else,  but  they  are  the  exceptions  to  prove  the  rule  that  the 
majority  of  the  retailers  are  conducting  the  business  as  it  ought  to  be 
conducted. 

The  only  attempt  to  specify  any  manufacturers  or  wholesalers  who 
are  said  to  be  aiding  the  retailers  in  any  fraudulent  sales  of  oleomar- 
garine are  allegations  wherein  Mr.  Knight  claimed  that  some  employee 
of  Braun  &  Fitts  and  of  Moxley  &  Co.  gave  bond  and  aided  in  the 
defense  of  certain .  alleged  violations  of  the  law.  It  was  promptly 
denied  by  Mr.  Jelke  on  behalf  of  Braun  &  Fitts  that  this  man  had  any 
authority  from  his  firm  to  do  other  than  protect  their  customers  when 
they  were  prosecuted  for  violations  of  what  were  deemed  to  be,  or  of 
what  were  in  some  instances  judicially  held  to  be,  unconstitutional  laws; 
that  it  was  a  part  of  the  business  of  this  employee  to  keep  in  touch 
with  everything  connected  with  the  trade,  including  prosecutions,  and 
doubtless  he  was  present,  but  if  said  employee  exerted  himself  in 
behalf  of  a  dealer  guilty  of  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter,  that  it 
was  against  express  instructions  of  the  firm  of  Braun  &  Fitts,  and 
that  he  was  further  of  the  opinion  that  Mr.  Moxley  did  not  counte- 
nance such  proceedings.  Mr.  Knight  also  produced  some  correspond- 
ence of  the  two  firms  which  he  claimed  amounted  to  an  agreement  to 
furnish  assistance  in  violating  the  laws,  but  which  the  representatives 
of  the  firms  insist  were  merely  an  assurance  that  they  would  defend 
against  any  unwarranted  interference  under  invalid  laws  by  the  offi- 
cers and  the  attorneys  of  the  National  Dairy  Union.  (Senate  Hearings, 
p.  465;  House  Hearings,  p.  38.)  "  And  it  seems  the  factories  were 
right,  since,  according  to  Mr.  Knight's  own  statement,  the  suits  failed. 
(House  Hearings,  p.  40.)  And  it  seems  that  his  nameless  clerk,  who 
had  worked  in  nearly  all  the  stores  and  was  ready  to  betray  his 
employers,  was  not  able  to  furnish  a  case  that  would  stand  a  legal  test 
(p.  461). 

The  Ohio  commissioner  impliedly  accused  the  Columbus  company  of 
a  wholesale  defense  of  retail  dealers,  but  in  reply  to  a  question  from 
Senator  Foster  as'  to  whether  or  not  they  defended  cases  where  the 
retailers  were  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter  he  stated  that  his 
impression  was  that  they  did,  but  he  could  not  recall  one  particular 
instance  of  that  kind.  (Senate  Hearings,  p.  163.)  Except  general 
accusations,  there  is  nothing  in  the  record  charging  any  of  the  other 
24  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  or  any  of  the  400  wholesalers  of 
defending  any  retailer  for  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter.  Mr. 
Flanders,  who  was  very  free  in  most  of  his  accusations,  was  careful 
not  to  even  make  these  accusations  against  the  manufacturers.  He 
started  at  the  top  of  page  126  of  the  Senate  Hearings  to  make  a 
wholesale  accusation  as  to  what  the  manufacturers  did  all  over  the 
country;  then  he  modified  the  statement  and  confined  it  to  New  York; 
then  he  called  attention  to  that  statement,  saying:  uMind  you  how  I 
put  it — that  we  are  told  by  parties  who  have  been  approached  that 
they  offered  to  indemnify  them."  They  failed  to  produce  a  single 
man  who  has  ever  been  indemnified  or  who  has  been  offered  to  be 
indemnified  by  either  a  factory  or  wholesaler  of  oleomargarine. 

Gentlemen,  they  have  failed  in  their  proof  of  any  fraud  at  all  on 
the  part  of  manufacturer  or  wholesaler  and  have  shown  an  amount  of 
fraud  on  the  part  of  the  retailers  as  small  as  could  be  expected  to  exist, 


868  OLEOMARGARINE. 

considering  the  immense  number  and  the  fact  that  these  same  dealers 
have  been  assailed  regardless  of  their  business  integrity  or  otherwise, 
while,  on  the  contrary,  it  appears  from  the  records  (House  Hearings, 
pp.  108,  169,  199,  211,  and  229,  and  Senate  Hearings,  pp.  280,  292, 
298,  etc.)  that  oleomargarine  is  sold  for  exactly  what  it  is  in  almost 
every  instance.  Nor  have  they  produced  a  single  consumer  who  com- 
plains of  having  been  swindled  in  purchasing  oleomargarine  for  butter. 
On  the  contrary  (Senate  Hearings,  p.  20),  it  was  stated  that  three- 
fourths  of  the  entire  product  of  one  factory  went  direct  to  the  con- 
sumer, and  at  page  381 1  presented  a  list  of  1,083  names  of  consumers 
who  buy  direct  from  one  factory  and  who  wish  to  continue  so  to  do 
and  protest  most  vigorously  against  the  passage  of  this  bill.  Secretary 
Gage  (Senate  Hearings,  p.  563)  also  told  you  in  part  of  their  experience 
with  a  cheese  plant  whose  owner  purchased  the  milk  from  the  farmers 
in  his  vicinity  and  who  in  turn,  as  the  agent  of  these  farmers,  pur- 
chased from  an  oleomargarine  factory  the  butter  substitute  which  these 
same  farmers  use  on  their  tables.  The  workiu^men  (as  consumers) 
appeal  to  you  to  leave  the  colored  production  within  their  reach. 
(Senate  Hearings,  pp.  307,  310,  350,  508,  and  568.) 

On  the  subject  of  threatened  absolute  destruction  of  the  dairy  indus- 
try I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  they  have  not  intro- 
duced any  evidence  to  show  that  the  industry  is  in  any  danger,  but 
that  the  evidence  throughout  the  record  is  to  the  effect  that  the  growth 
of  the  dairy  industry  has  been  even  more  rapid  in  the  last  ten  years 
than  the  growth  of  the  oleomargarine  industry.  (House  Hearings, 
p.  158 ;  Senate  Hearings,  pp.  439-440).  I  call  attention  to  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Lestrade  before  the  Senate  committee  at  pages  166  and  171  as  to 
the  growth  in  quality  and  quantity  of  the  butter  industry,  and  his  further 
statement,  at  page  216,  that  the  butter  men  were  making  better  profits 
than  ever  before.  Also  to  the  statement  of  Mr.  Kimball,  at  page  55 
of  the  House  Hearings,  to  the  effect  that  butter  was  then  2  cents  per 
pound  higher  than  formerly;  to  the  statement  of  Mr.  Thomas  Sharp- 
less  (Senate  Hearings,  p.  228)  that  he  still  received  35  cents  per  pound 
for  his  entire  output,  and  that  his  neighbors  received  from  25  cents 
up;  and  to  the  statement  of  C.  H.  Royce  (p.  379),  who  gets  50  cents 
per  pound  for  his  butter;  and  particularly  to  the  statement  of  Gov- 
ernor Hoard,  quoted  by  Representative  Bailey,  at  page  64  of  the  House 
Hearings,  to  the  effect  that  the  dairy  industry  has  made  more  rapid 
strides  than  any  other  industry  in  the  country;  and  to  page  439, 
where  Mr.  Jelke  asks  Mr.  Adams,  "Is  not  your  industry  more  pros- 
perous now  than  it  ever  was  before?"  Mr.  Adams.  "  Yes,  sir." 

Regarding  their  claim  that  State  legislation  is  a  failure,  we  must  say 
again  that  they  have  not  proven  their  claim.  On  the  contrary,  as 
appears  from  the  evidence,  the  "oleomargarine  or  butter'1  laws  are 
capable  of  enforcement  and  are  enforced  in  every  State,  so  far  as  is 
shown  by  the  record.  It  is  also  shown  that  the  color  laws  are  strictly 
enforced  in  New  York,  in  Iowa,  in  Wisconsin,  and  also  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, in  so  far  as  any  effort  has  been  made  to  enforce  them.  It  also 
appears  of  record  that  the  color  laws  are  much  more  difficult  to  enforce 
than  the  other  provisions  of  the  law;  that  they  are  utterly  unfair  and 
consequently  unpopular.  And  it  stands  to  reason  that  so  long  as  a 
man  accused  of  a  crime  has  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  and  that  crime 
is  merely  selling  other  men  what  they  want,  for  what  it  is,  and  col- 
ored as  they  want  it,  and  those  other  men  sit  in  judgment,  it  will  be 


OLEOMARGARINE.  869 

extremely  difficult  to  enforce  any  such  laws  as  these.  And,  gentle- 
men, the  Grout  bill  can't  deprive  a  man  of  the  right  to  trial  by  jury. 

Their  charges  against  the  revenue  agents  have  been  pronounced 
false  by  the  agents  themselves  and  their  superiors  in  office.  They 
claim  that  the  revenue  department  will  not  enforce  a  law  unless  the 
collection  of  revenue  be  the  incentive.  While  that  cowardly  charge 
against  the  revenue  department  is  not  to  be  considered,  yet  the  Wads- 
worth  substitute  bill  offers  this  additional  incentive  to  the  revenue 
collector  to  enforce  retail  regulations. 

This,  gentlemen,  we  ta^e  #3  be  a  fair  analysis  of  the  alleged  strong 
points  of  the  case  attempted  *;be  made  in  favor  of  the  Grout  bill.  Now, 
we  beg  to  call  your  attentioily*)riefly  to  what  we  term  the  weak  points  of 
the  bill,  or  some  of  the  reaftns  why  not  only  the  bill,  but  its  friends, 
should  hear  the  voice  of  condemnation,  and  that  in  no  uncertain  terms, 
from  the  members  of  the  committee.  I  refer  to  the  utter  and  abso- 
lute dishonesty  of  the  measure  itself,  to  the  dishonest  attitude  that 
has  been  taken  before  this  committee  regarding  the  bill  and  its  true 
purport,  and  to  the  fact  that  although  attempting  to  conceal  the  full 
iniquity  of  their  purpose  they  have  yet  had  the  audacity  and  unpar- 
alleled insolence  to  ask  this  committee  to  be  a  party  to  an  act  of  dis- 
honesty so  base  that  it  would  make  a  black  stain  on  the  darkest  walls 
of  perdition. 

Gentlemen,  they  have  not  been  fair  and  open  with  you  in  this  matter. 
They  come  here  under  the  alleged  authority  of  millions  of  producers 
and  consumers,  and  with  the  false  battle  cry  of  "fraud."  On  demand 
they  fail  to  produce  even  a  forged  power  of  attorney  from  more  than 
30,000  people.  Their  alleged  constituency  wilted  away  like  a  blighted 
flower,  but  they  still  strained  their  utmost  efforts  to  keep  the  alleged 
fraud  in  the  foreground,  and  directly  and  persistently  evaded  the 
questions  asked  by  members  of  this  and  the  House  committee  in  an 
effort  to  get  at  their  real  motives  and  purposes.  (See  an  example  in 
Senator  Soney's  efforts,  pp.  488,  et  seq.) 

At  the  bottom  of  page  2  of  the  House  hearings  Governor  Hoard  says: 

That  with  the  tax  of  10  cents  per  pound  on  the  counterfeit  substitute  we  believe 
the  temptation  for  unjust  profits,  deceptive  sale,  dishonorable  and  dangerous  con- 
spiring against  law,  and  fraudulent  competition  with  an  honest  industry  will  be 
greatly  modified. 

At  page  10  of  the  House  Hearings  Mr.  Knight  says: 

All  we  ask  is  that  the  people  be  protected  in  the  right  to  choose  between  the  two 
articles. 

In  the  Senate  hearings,  at  page  6,  Senator  Allen  asks  Mr.  Grout: 
"Suppose  that  it  is  apparent  on  the  face  of  this  bill  that  the  motive 
for  imposing  this  tax  is  to  destroy  the  thing  taxed ? "  Mr.  Grout:  uWe 
deny  this.  We  say  that  is  not  the  motive."  And  at  the  bottom  of  the 
page  General  Grout  savs  further: 

But  let  me  say  it  is  not  the  purpose  here  to  tax  it  out  of  existence.  The  object  of 
this  second  section  is  to  prevent  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter,  to  prevent  a 
fraud.  No;  instead  of  destroying,  it  encourages  the  manufacture  of  the 

honest  article.  All  that  it  seeks  to  destroy  is  the  fraud  that  is  perpetrated  when  it 
is  colored  like  butter. 

At  page  179  of  the  House  hearings  Representative  Haugen,  a  friend 
of  the  bill,  says  to  Commissioner  Wilson: 

Yes;  but  under  the  bill  the  paying  of  the  10-cent  tax  would  permit  the  manu- 
facturers to  color  their  product  and  make  it  an  imitation  of  butter,  and  then  it  would 
cost  only  18  cents  per  pound.  *  *  * 


870  OLEOMARGARINE, 

At  page  81  of  the  Senate  hearings  Mr.  Adarns  feels  called  upon  to 
deny  the  only  record  of  his  statement  before  the  House  committee,  to 
the  effect  that  he  wanted  to  drive  the  oleomargarine  manufacturer  out 
of  the  business.  And  Mr.  Knight  at  the  same  time  disputed  the 
authenticity  of  the  letter  purporting  to  have  been  written  by  him  to 
the  Virginia  dairymen,  and  which  was  to  the  same  general  effect. 
Your  committee  will  recall — and  it  is  in  evidence  at  pages  220,  234, 235, 
248,  252,  253,  and  254^-the  efforts  to  get  the  Philadelphia  delegation 
on  record  as  to  whether  they  wanted  a  total  destruction  of  the  industry 
or  merely  wanted  oleomargarine  kept  OIL^  own  side  of  the  fence. 
The  delegates  all  evidently  had  views  of  ,icUr  own,  but  their  attorney 
insisted  on  talking  for  them,  and  in  the  efrMr.  Grout  insisted  on  tell- 
ing him  what  to  say,  and  he  said  it.  Thei  ,  is  nothing  more  true  in  the 
Bible,  however,  than  that  "from  the  fullness  of  the  heart  the  mouth 
speaketh."  And  because  of  this  failing  of  the  human  mind,  rather 
than  from  any  intention  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  this  bill,  we  have 
the  gentlemen  on  record. 

At  page  4  of  the  House  Hearings  Governor  Hoard  says:  "The 
whole  proposition  is  in  a  nutshell — force  out  the  color  or  semblance  to 
butter  and  you  put  a  stop  to  its  being  imposed  upon  the  consumer  for 
butter."  He  does  not  say  raise  the  price  of  the  colored  article,  but 
"force  out  the  color."  At  page  62  of  the  House  Hearings  Mr. 
Knight  says:  "1  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  necessity  for  the  col- 
ored oleomargarine  being  sold."  At  page  69  of  the  House  Hearings 
Mr.  Hewes,  whom  the  committee  will  remember,  says:  "The  10-cent 
tax  is  with  the  view  of  prohibiting  all  manufacture  of  oleomargarine 
yellow  unless  they  want  to  pay  the  penalty.  It  is  to  tax  that  yellow 
color."  And  Mr.  Adams,  in  his  correction  of  the  minority  report 
(Senate  Hearings,  p.  81),  says: 

He  simply  stated  *  *  *  that  we  had  no  purpose  to  stop  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  oleomargarine,  but  simply  of  the  colored  imitation — counterfeit  product. 

Mr.  Grout  keeps  himself  well  in  reserve  on  the  subject  of  crowding 
out  any  recognized  product,  but  at  the  tor>  of  page  9  of  the  Senate 
Hearings  he  becomes  warmed  up  to  his  subject  and  says:  "But  if  you 
will  put  this  10-cent  tax  on  it  and  stop  all  coloring  like  butter,  the 
game  will  then  be  up."  This  same  expression,  which  seems  to  be  an 
outlet  for  his  pent-up  feelings,  was  again  delivered  with  great  orator- 
ical effect  before  your  honorable  committee  on  the  last  day  of  your 
regular  hearings  on  this  subject>  and  at  which  hearing,  as  appears 
(Senate  Hearings,  pp.  579,  580)  of  record,  Mr.  Grout  was  asked 
directly,  and  failed  to  answer,  how,  under  his  bill,  the  factories  could 
supply  their  export  trade  or  their  orders  from  consumers  who  wanted 
the  colored  oleomargarine  and  were  willing  to  pay  the  extra  10  cents 
per  pound,  when  their  return  to  the  Government  would  be  a  sworn 
plea  of  guilty  to  the  violation  of  a  State  law  and  would  put  them 
immediately  in  the  grasp  of  the  State  officers  in  thirty-two  States  of 
the  Union.  A  letter  from  Mr.  Blackburn,  quoted  at  page  354,  says: 
"  We  should  stand  together  in  a  fight  to  a  finish  against  oleomargarine." 

Mr.  Hamilton,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  page  152  of  the  Senate  hearings, 
quotes  with  approval  from  the  governor's  message,  which  says: 

I  am  much  gratified  at  the  prospects  of  the  early  passage  in  Congress  of  the  Grout 
bill;  for  if  this  bill  becomes  a  law,  it  will  greatly  aid  in  the  suppression  of  the  oleo- 
margarine traffic. 


OLEOMARGARINE.  87 1 

Not  illegal  traffic,  but c '  oleomargarine  traffic. "  Gentlemen,  through- 
out the  record,  from  the  various  expressions  of  those  who  have  been 
heard  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  this  bill,  creeps  to  the  surface  the 
sentiment  that  it  is  not  the  suppression  of  fraud.  It  is  not  the  protec- 
tion of  the  consumer.  It  is  not  a  question  of  mere  regulation  of  com- 
petition between  rival  industries.  It  is  not  a  question  of  insufficiency 
of  State  legislation.  It  is  not  a  question  of  nonenf  orcement  of  existing 
revenue  laws.  It  is  not  a  question  of  threatened  absolute  destruction 
of  the  dairy  industry.  But  it  is  a  question  of  systematic  organized 
effort  to  legislate  out  of  existence  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine. 
Not,  as  some  of  the  friends  of  the  bill  reluctantly  or  unguardedly  admit, 
the  driving  out  of  the  manufacture  of  the  colored  product,  because 
they  all  know,  and  the  manufacturers  all  know  and  have  testified,  either 
personally  or  by  counsel,  before  your  committee  that  the  uncolored 
article  is  absolutely  unmarketable.  (Senate  hearings,  pp.  37,  39,  47, 
204,  531,  568,  etc.)  And  the  same  thing  is  admittedly  true  with  regard 
to  butter.  In  vain  we  ask :  ' '  Why  should  one  product  have  a  monopoly 
on  color?"  The  answers  would  apply  equally  as  well  in  defending  a 
law  regulating  the  color  of  a  man's  clothes  or  a  maiden's  cheeks  accord- 
ing to  their  respective  stations  in  life. 

These  men  have  laid  their  lines  well  by  working  on  the  credulity  of 
the  farmer,  by  taking  advantage  of  the  lack  of  any  resistance,  organ- 
ized or  otherwise,  on  the  part  of  the  oleomargarine  industry,  and  they 
have  passed  prohibitorj7  laws  in  thirty-two  different  States,  laws  neces- 
sarily unpopular,  and,  as  to  their  unfair  features,  hard  to  enforce. 
And  now  they  come  before  Congress  asking  that  a  bill  be  passed  by 
which  the  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine  is  crushed,  not  by  the  con- 
flict of  laws,  but  by  the  coming  together  of  the  State  and  national  laws. 

They  come  before  you  reeking  with  dishonesty  of  purpose  and  with 
every  claim  supported  by  glaring  falsehoods.  And,  attempting  to  con- 
ceal what  they  can  of  their  duplicity,  they  still  say:  "Gentlemen,  we 
want  this  law.  We  concede  that  we  can  not  get  it  under  its  proper 
classification,  but  if  you  will  impose  upon  the  people  and  on  the 
Supreme  Court  by  giving  us  this  law  under  the  guise  of  a  revenue 
measure,  the  future  butter  trust  and  the  dairy  publications  will  rise 
up  and  call  you  blest."  And  they  do  not  hesitate  to  make  you  parties 
of  record  to  this  fraud  which  they  want  perpetrated. 

At  page  2  of  the  House  hearings  Governor  Hoard  says:  "In  plain 
words  this  is  repressive  taxation."  At  page  11  of  the  hearings  before 
this  committee  he  says:  "The  Federal  Government  is  limited  in  its 
constitutional  power.  It  has  no  right  to  enact  prohibition.  It  has  no 
police  power.  These  things  you  are  as  well  aware  of  as  I  am."  At 
page  7  of  the  Senate  hearings  General  Grout  says:  "  I  do  not  think  it 
[the  one-fourth-cent  revenue]  ought  to  be  less,  for  it  ought  to  be  large 
enough  to  cover  the  cost  of  policing  the  business."  And,  in  reply  to 
the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  subject  is  one  of  police  regula- 
tion in  the  State:  "Yes,  but  we  have  got  a  regulation  here  in  this 
second  section  which  transcends  police  regulations;  and  if  the  Senator 
will  allow  me  a  moment,  I  will  make  it  plain  to  him."  Senator  Allen: 
"Can  you  do  that?"  General  Grout:  "Oh,  yes,  sir;  in  the  way  we 
propose  to  do  it  here,  as  I  believe."  He  does  not  proceed  to  tell  the 
way,  but  the  way  is  to  cover  up  the  motive  by  giving  the  act  a  revenue 
cloak. 


872  OLEOMARGARINE, 

At  page  65  of  the  House  hearings  Mr.  Hewes  says: 

And  so  it  went  on  until  the  year  1886,  when  we  appeared  here  for  the  purpose  of 
having  Congress  exercise  its  police  regulations,  and  of  course  we  could  only  get  to 
Congress  and  ask  for  a  revenue  measure,  and,  as  the  late  lamented  Mr.  Dingley  said 
to  me  only  a  year  or  two  ago:  "  Mr.  Hewes,  you  know  well  enough  that  that  was  a 
ruse  of  yours  to  get  this  thing  into  Congress  under  the  head  of  a  police  measure  by 
drawing  the  revenue  to  the  Government; "  but  we  knew  what  we  were  talking  about. 

And  at  page  69  he  says:  "We  [the  butter  men]  said  [to  the  Govern- 
ment] *  *  *  we  will  give  you  a  million  and  a  half  dollars  of  reve- 
nue, and  we  ask  you  simply  to  act  as  policemen."  At  page  109  of  the 
Senate  hearings,  referring  to  a  fraud  mentioned  by  Judge  Springer, 
Mr.  Flanders  says:  "It  is  not  a  proper  subject  of  the  police  power. 
We  are  invoking  the  Police  power."  At  page  6  of  the  House  Hearings 
Mr.  Knight  s&ys: 

The  matter  of  legislating  against  the  counterfeit  article,  however,  was  found  to  be 
a  complex  proposition  for  Congress  because  of  the  constitutional  restriction,  which 
prevents  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  exercising  police  powers  except  for  the 
protection  of  its  revenue  receipts,  interstate  commerce,  and  other  matters  absolutely 
within  the  limits  of  the  Constitution.  *  *  * 

The  markings  of  the  "wolf"  appear  very  much  in  evidence  regard- 
less of  his  "sheep's  clothing." 

On  the  Wadsworth  substitute  bill,  allow  me  to  say,  from  the  stand- 
point of  an  attorney  who  for  years  has  been  aiding  the  manufacturers 
and  wholesalers  in  keeping  oleomargarine  on  the  market  for  what  it  is, 
what  I  have  already  said  at  your  hearing,  that  1  agree  with  Commis- 
sioner Wilson  and  others  who  have  testified  that  it  will  reduce  the 
possibility  of  fraud  to  a  minimum. 

And  as  to  the  Grout  bill,  I  repeat  what  I  have  heretofore  said,  that 
it  places  a  premium  on  fraud.  It  does  not  prevent  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine for  butter.  Every  rogue  in  the  business  can  greatly  increase 
his  profits  and  be  safer  than  at  present.  And  I  believe  the  law  was 
drawn  partly  for  that  purpose.  The  coloring  by  the  retailer  is  one 
way  and  an  easy  one,  and  there  is  no  law  to  prevent,  but  it  is  crude. 
There  are  other  and  better  ways  and  they  will  be  used.  But,  gentle- 
men, prevent  it  by  preventing  this  useless  and  iniquitous  law  from 
becoming  a  blot  on  the  statute  books  of  this  great  country. 

This  is  a  history -making  age,  and  as  you  value  justice  and  your 
records  as  legislators  do  not  allow  an  otherwise  fairly  clean  chapter 
to  be  marred  by  the  actual  taking  of  the  worst  backward  step  with 
which  this  country  has  been  threatened  since  it  first  placed  a  premium 
on  freedom  in  all  the  word  implies. 

I  had  intended  to  submit  a  brief  on  the  law  applying  to  this  subject, 
but  to  do  it  justice  it  would  be  necessary  to  begin  with  the  constitu- 
tional debates  and  review  all  decisions  on  delegation  of  power,  enlarg- 
ing of  power,  police  power,  taxing  power,  and  interstate  commerce, 
and  how  far  a  supreme  court  will  allow  a  dishonest  or  a  misguided 
Congress  to  impose  on  the  people  (under  proper  headings)  improper 
laws. 

And  again,  this  committee  needs  no  enlightenment  on  whether  or  not 
this  is  a  lawful  measure.  Every  member  knows  it  is  not,  every  Con- 
gressman knows  it  is  not,  every  advocate  of  the  bill  knows  it  is  not,  and 
friend  and  foe  alike  concede  that  only  as  a  revenue  measure  would  it 
.stand  a  constitutional  test  for  a  minute. 

I  can  not  leave  this  question  without  mentioning  the  methods  of 
intimidation  that  have  pervaded  the  pressing  of  this  bill,  from  the 


OLEOMARGARINE.  873 

inciting  of  telegrams  and  letters,  so  strongly  denounced  by  Senator 
Allen  (p.  24),  to  more  open  threats  of  punishment  at  the  polls. 

Governor  Hoard's  main  effort  was  in  parading  his  alleged  millions  of 
dairymen,  and,  at  page  414,  he  boldly  says: 

The  Government  has  the  power  in  this  way  to  discourage  wrongdoing  and  encour- 
age honest  industry,  and  the  people  will  hold  it  responsible  for  the  exercise  of  that 
power  when  the  opportunity  comes,  as  in  the  present  case. 

And  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  who  were  present  will  recall 
how  Mr.  Knight  and  Mr.  Flanders  showed  their  harmless  fangs  in  an 
imitation  gloat  over  an  alleged  falling  off  of  the  majority  of  Congress- 
man Wadsworth  when  Judge  Springer  read  an  attack  made  by  Mr. 
Knight  on  him  because  he  had  the  moral  courage  to  "face  floods  of 
petitions  "  and  do  as  his  conscience  dictated.  Judge  Springer  read  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Knight  to  a  Mr.  Hubbard,  of  Mr.  Wadsworth's  dis- 
trict. I  quote  from  the  letter  as  appears  at  page  83  of  the  Senate 
hearings: 

Well,  if  you  have  ever  been  hi  court  and  observed  a  lawyer  defending  a  criminal, 
you  can  understand  how  he  fought  for  the  oleomargarine  makers.  He  was  the  most 
active  opponent  we  had  in  Congress.  He  spent  more  time  lobbying  against  our 
bill  than  even  the  acknowledged  agent  of  the  oleomargarine  makers — Lorimer,  of 
Chicago — to  whose  tender  mercies  Wadsworth  consigned  the  Grout  bill  when  it  was 
referred  to  his  committee,  that  it  might  be  smothered. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

While  no  oleomargarine  is  made  in  his  State,  he  has  conceived  a  great  affection  for 
the  kind  of  oleomargarine  that  is  an  exact  counterfeit  of  butter,  forbidden  by  New 
York,  and  which  defrauds  the  public  everywhere,  and  the  only  kind  we  are  seeking 
to  suppress. 

Wadsworth's  friends  in  Congress  were  amazed  at  his  attitude  in  this  matter.  His 
conduct  was  unprecedented.  No  Congressman  representing  a  Northern  agricultural 
district  has  ever  been  known  to  take  such  an  aggressive  stand  against  the  farmers  of 
his  district  in  face  ot  such  floods  of  petitions,  and  no  support  whatever  from  his  own 
people  in  his  position. 

Wadsworth,  with  his  bill,  is  the  most  dangerous  enemy  the  dairymen  have  in  the 
world.  As  chairman  of  the  agricultural  committee  he  has  certain  prestige.  If  he 
is  returned  to  Congress  by  the  votes  of  the  farmers  of  his  district,  thereby  winning 
their  approval  of  his  course,  it  will  be  bad  for  us.  His  reelection,  unless  with  a  greatly 
reduced  majority,  will  be  a  victory  for  the  stock  yards  and  oleomargarine  fraud  of 
Chicago  and  a  death  knell  to  the  farmers'*  influence  in  Congress. 

You  who  were  present  will  recall  the  menacing  manner  of  Mr. 
Knight  and  Mr.  Flanders  during  the  conversation  which  followed  and 
in  which  Mr.  Knight  interrupted  with  the  question,  "Judge  Springer, 
do  you  know  how  far  he  ran  behind  his  ticket?"  Judge  Springer — 
"I  do  not."  Mr.  Knight—  "I  do."  Mr.  Springer— '  'He  got  votes 
enough,  however,  to  give  him  a  majority  of  about  9,000  in  his  district." 
Mr.  Flanders — "The  official  returns  of  the  State  of  New  York  have 
not  been  printed,  but  the  returns  in  the  agricultural  papers  in  the  State 
of  New  York  show  that  he  ran  2,000  behind." 

Gentlemen,  when  Mr.  Wadsworth  came  before  you  (p.  159)  to  state 
that  he  did  not  run  behind  his  ticket,  but  had  an  increased  majority, 
and  that  the  farmers  of  his  district  at  least  approved  of  the  Wadsworth 
substitute  bill  the  representatives^  those  same  prevaricating  agricul- 
tural papers  had  nothing  to  say. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  not  the  oleomargarine  industry  alone  that  is  here  on 
trial.  You  are  arraigned  before  the  bar  of  the  people.  A  few  men, 
well  organized  and  backed  only  by  a  manufactured  public  sentiment, 
are  saying  to  you,  "Violate  your  oaths,  trample  your  consciences  and 
the  Constitution  under  foot,  give  us  what  we  ask  and  in  the  language 


874  OLEOMARGARINE. 

we  ask  it,  change  not  one  word,  or  we,  the  dairymen,  will  hold  you 
responsible.  Some  dishonest  dealer  in  a  doubtful  district  of  Chicago 
has  sold  oleomargarine  for  butter,  and  you  must  even  up  the  score  by 
giving  the  nation  a  discriminating  law  under  the  guise  of  a  revenue 
measure." 

On  the  other  side — on  the  side  of  right  and  justice  and  your  con- 
sciences— is  a  larger  number  of  all  classes  and  conditions,  making  no 
threats,  asking  no  favors,  but  simply,  quietly,  and  unostentatiously 
asking  to  be  left  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  rights  given  them  by  God 
and  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution.  These  people  are  not  organized, 
their  protests  have  been  made  politely  by  letter  and  by  resolution  and 
sent  to  this  committee;  and  some  have  found  their  way  into  the  record 
and  some  have  not. 

Gentlemen,  we  have  of  record  one  instance  of  the  extent  of  the  power 
of  this  "united  dairy  sentiment."  The  constituency  of  Congressman 
Wads  worth  approved  of  his  attitude  and  his  bill;  and  so  does  every 
fair-minded  man  of  whatever  walk  in  life.  But  the  Grout  bill  can  not 
bid  for  the  stamp  of  public  approval.  It  is  dishonest  on  its  face,  and 
its  viciousness  is  apparent  to  all.  It  is  so  plain  "that  he  who  runs  may 
read,"  and  "a  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  need  not  err  therein." 
The  people,  including  the  dairymen,  know  it  for  what  it  is,  and  they 
know  the  actual  sentiment  on  the  subject,  and  their  judgment  is  sus- 
pended awaiting  your  action,  and  to  see  whether  or  not  you  can  be 
forced  into  line  by  the  scarecrow  of  alleged  public  sentiment,  wielded 
by  a  few  dairy  publishers  and  lobbyists. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  spoken  plainly,  but  truly,  and  the  importance  of 
the  subject  and  the  truth  of  iny  assertions  are  my  only  excuses,  if 
excuses  are  necessary. 


OUTLINE  OF  STATEMENTS  AND  INDEX. 


ADAMS,  Hon.  H.  C.,  food  commissioner  of  Wisconsin— For  bill— Grout  bill  aims  at 
fraud — Denmark  eats  white  oleo,  431 — Proof  that  oleomargarine  can  be  sold 
uncolored,  433 — Why  State  laws  were  passed,  435 — Legal  view  of  right  to  color 
oleomargarine,  436 — Protection  against  State  laws  guaranteed,  439 — Profits  in 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  442 — How  State  laws  are  evaded  in  Wisconsin, 
443— All  food  commissioners  for  Grout  bill,  445— Extent  of  cattlemen's  interest, 
445 — Ashamed  to  buy  oleomargarine  in  its  own  name,  446 — Resolutions  of  Com- 
mission Merchants'  League,  447— Question  of  healthfulness  not  germane,  448— 
Use  of  the  taxing  power.  448. 

ALDREDGE,  GEORGE  N.,  attorney  for  the  Oil  Mills  Association  of  Texas— Against  the 
bill— All  parts  of  the  country  but  cotton-raising  States  prosperous— Northern 
workingmen  better  fixed  than  those  of  South,  692— Cow  milkers  v.  cotton 
farmers — This  bill  compared  with  a  horse  race,  693 — Citation  of  authorities  on 
healthfulness,  694 — Inferior  butter  makers  and  the  chemist — Government  never 
organized  for  such  a  purpose — Compared  with  a  boat  race,  695 — These  dairymen 
are  wealthy — Butter  higher  to-day  than  it  ever  was — Who  are  on  the  other  side, 
696 — Prices  on  butterine  and  butter — WThere  is  the  poor  man  to  get  money  to 
buy  butter  at  30  to  35  cents — Farmers  will  commence  making  if  large  makers 
are  cut  off,  697 — Difference  between  fraud  and  innocent  deception — Let  us  fool 
.  the  people  for  eight  months  in  the  year,  698 — Government  would  have  to  quit 
everything  else — The  Constitution  and  commerce — South  will  legislate  against 
Northern  products,  699— Reference  to  the  map  as  shady,  dark  business— Attempt 
to  impede  the  wheels  of  progress — McCormick  ought  to  have  been  enjoined,  700. 

ALEXANDER,  GEORGE  B.,  maker  of  cotton-seed  oil — Against  the  bill — Amount  capital 
invested  in  oil-mill  business  in  South — Value  of  seed  used  in  cotton-seed  oil — 
New  industry,  if  any,  entitled  to  protection,  723. 

ALLEN,  A.  D.,  representing  Consumers'  Cotton  Oil  Company,  of  Little  Rock,  Ark. — 
Against  the  bill — Employ  mostly  unskilled  negroes,  736. 

ALLISON,  J.  W.,  president  Cotton  Oil  and  Ginning  Company,  Ennis,  Tex.— Against 
the  bill — Healthfulness  of  oleomargarine — Cleanliness  of  cotton-seed  oil — Who 
buy  cotton-seed  oil — Facts  about  the  oil  business,  725 — Use  of  cotton-seed  oil  as 
a  food — Cotton  seed  sold  for  cash,  726 — Fear  bill  will  put  stigma  upon  output, 
726— Don't  want  to  lose  a  customer  that  buys  $3,000,000  a  year,  725— Sample  of 
white  cotton-seed  oil — What  is  butter  oil,  727 — Feeding  cotton-seed  meal  to 
milch  cows. 

BASSETT,  Hon.  S.  C.,  president  State  board  agriculture  of  Nebraska — For  bill — Few 
measures  created  so  much  interest  among  farmers — State  laws  openly  violated  in 
Nebraska — Fraud  induced  by  large  profits,  450 — Facts  misrepresented  to  cattle 
growers — Facts  about  value  of  oleomargarine  to  growers  of  cattle,  451 — Majority 
of  cattle  owned  in  States  with  anticolor  laws — Grout  bill  only  measure  that  can 
protect  consumers,  453. 

BOND,  HENRY,  manufacturer  cotton-seed  oil,  Chattanooga,  Tenn. — Against  bill- 
Number  cotton-seed-oil  mills  in  Tennessee — Amount  cotton-seed  oil  used  in 
oleomargarine  in  this  country,  324 — Estimated  damage  to  cotton-seed  oil  interests 
by  passage  of  Grout  bill — Manufacture  of  cotton-seed  oil,  325 — Amount  used  in 
compound  lard,  326 — Amount  made  from  ton  of  seed,  327 — State  laws  in  South, 
328— Violations  in  Tennessee,  329. 

BLACKBURN,  Hon.  JOSEPH  E.,  food  commissioner  of  Ohio — For  bill — Why  State  laws 
are  not  enforced — Money  spent  in  prosecutions,  161 — Difficulty  in  jury  trials — 
Banqueting  jurors — Manufacturers'  guarantee  of  protection  to  retailers,  162 — How 
justice  is  defeated — Seventy -five  per  cent  of  oleomargarine  sold  as  butter  in  Ohio — 
Will  require  national  legislation  to  stamp  out  fraud,  163. 

875 


876  INDEX. 

BRADY,  F.  W.,  representing  cotton-seed  oil  interests — Against  the  hill — Cotton-seed 
oil  interests  all  over  the  South,  while  dairying  only  covers  five  States,  736 — 
Where  cotton-seed  oil  mills  are  located — Damage  to  export  trade — Production 
of  oleo  oil  and  its  cleanliness,  737. 

CANTRELL,  WM.  R.,  secretary  of  the  Williams  &  Flash  Company,  exporters  of  cotton- 
seed oil — Against  the  bill — Growth  of  business  in  cotton-seed  oil  and  products — 
Export  demand  for  cotton-seed  oil — Claim  of  $4,000,000  a  year  loss  in  oleomar- 
garine interest  is  destroyed — Cotton-seed  oil  in  France,  730 — Purity  of  cotton- 
seed oil,  731. 

CHEEK,  W.  B.,  South  Omaha,  Nebr.,  vice-president  Live-Stock  Exchange — Against  the 
bill — How  oleomargarine  is  sold  in  Omaha — Excessive  demand  for  dairy  prod- 
ucts, 748. 

CONLEY,  J.  B.,  Greenville,  Miss.,  representing  Cotton-Seed  Crushers'  Association — 
Against  the  bill — Effect  of  passage  of  bill  on  cotton-seed  oil — Number  of  cotton- 
seed-oil mills,  322— Estimated  loss  per  gallon — An  entering  wedge — Unfair  that 
oleomargarine  makers  should  not  be  permitted  to  color,  32:5. 

COWAN,  S.  H.,  Fort  Worth,  Tex.,  attorney  for  Texas  Cattle  Growers'  Association — 
Against  the  bill — Resolutions  of  Texas  Cattle  Raisers'  Association,  653 — Resolu- 
tions of  South  St.  Joseph  Live-Stock  Exchange,  654 — Grout  bill  is  class  legislation — 
Will  affect  cattle  values  from  $3  to  $4  per  head,  655 — Legislation  benefiting  but- 
ter men  simply  should  not  be  passed — Law  should  not  protect  in  selection  of 
food,  656 — Would  you  buy  butter  if  not  colored? — Want  whisky  colored? — Mem- 
bership of  National  Live-Stock  Exchange — Members  know  wThat  effect  Grout  bill 
will  have  on  cattle,  660 — Would  damage  cattle  $3  to  $4  per  head— Value  of  fat  used 
from  steers  in  oleomargarine,  661 — Petitions  from  cattle  owners  for  passage  of 
Grout  bill — Cattle  men  generally  not  opposing  it — Only  range  men  who  own 
shares  in  stock  yards  oppose  bill,  662. 

CLEAVER,  ISAAC  W.,  manager  Acme  Tea  Company,  Philadelphia — For  the  bill — 
Beaten  by  our  competitors  who  resort  to  fraud,  220 — No  demand  for  oleomarga- 
rine at  our  63  stores,  221. 

CRAMPTON,  CHARLES  A.,  chemist  Internal  Revenue  Bureau — Invited  by  committee — 
Trade  urged  to  sell  butterine  for  just  what  it  is,  781 — No  secret  in  manufacture 
of  oleomargarine,  781 — Melting  tests  of  oleomargarine  and  butter,  782 — Opinions 
of  leading  chemists  on  oleomargarine,  783 — Could  not  sell  oleomargarine  with 
additional  tax  of  8c.  lb.,  784— Percentage  of  oleomargarine  compared  with  pro- 
duction of  butter,  784 — Output  of  butter  for  1899  from  New  York  paper,  785 — 
Doing  nothing  in  uncolored  oleomargarine,  785 — Discussion  of  violations  of  the 
laws,  786 — Discussion  of  effect  of  bill  on  cotton-seed  oil  industry,  787 — Does  the 
farmer  get  additional  price  for  his  cattle?  788 — Extracts  from  market  papers  on 
butter  values,  790 — Average  digestibility  of  oleomargarine  and  butter,  791. 

CULBERTSON,  J.  J.,  Dallas,  Tex.,  treasurer  Continental  Cotton  Oil  Company,  of  New 
York — Against  the  bill — Government  stamp  of  approval  on  oleomargarine — 
Right  of  use  of  color  in,  346 — Color  of  cotton-seed  oil,  347 — Use  of  caustic  soda 
in  refining  cotton-seed  oil,  348. 

DADIE,  JOHN,  of  Wm.  J.  Moxley  Company,  makers  of  oleomargarine,  Chicago — 
Against  the  bill — Grout  bill  in  new  garb  this  time — Object  is  to  strike  out  life  of 
industry— History  of  oleomargarine  one  of  strife — State  laws  have  been  declared 
unconstitutional — The  law  of  1886,  701 — Provisions  of  law  of  1886 — A  campaign 
of  education — Advertising  the  article  in  Chicago — Demonstrating  the  merits  of 
oleomargarine,  702 — Manufacture  of  oleomargarine  under  modern  improvements — 
Butter  makers'  complaint  of  dirty  milk  received  at  creameries — Dairy  herds 
affected  with  tuberculosis,  703 — Color  to  please  the  eye — Consumer  never  prose- 
cuted a  dealer  for  violation  of  law,  704 — Reference  to  letters  of  Wm.  J.  Moxley 
sent  to  retailers — Letter  of  Attorney  Murray  referred  to — Letter  of  Chas.  Y. 
Knight  referred  to  and  explained — Regarding  petitions  received  by  members  of 
Congress,  705 — People  who  are  opposed  to  Grout  bill — Federation  of  Labor  dis- 
approves— Congress  should  not  be  used  as  a  bumper  between  rival  interests — 
Samples  of  oleomargarine  put  up  according  to  law,  706 — Sale  of  oleomargarine  in 
Nebraska — About  coloring  butter  at  the  creameries,  707 — Questions  regarding 
letter  on  color  of  oleomargarine — Uncolored  butterine  could  not  be  sold  any 
more  than  uncolored  butter,  708 — About  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  wrappers  with 
corner  turned  down — Question  of  amount  and  character  of  ingredients  in  oleo- 
margarine, 709 — Ingredients  used  in  oleomargarine — Manufacturers  use  different 
formulas,  710 — Germs  in  butter  and  oleomargarine — How  oleomargarine  is  sold, 
711 — Attention  called  to  different  shades  of  color. 


INDEX.  877 

DAVIS,  HENRY  E.,  attorney  for  Standard  Bntterine  Company,  Washington — Against 
the  bill— Right  of  States  to  tax,  392— Right  of  Congress  to  delegate  power  to 
States,  393— Healthfulness  of  oleomargarine  recognized  by  Supreme  Court,  396— 
Why  Grout  bill  is  unwise  and  unjust,  399 — Oleomargarine  not  an  imitation  of 
Butter — The  one  purpose  of  the  Grout  bill,  401 — Color  made  by  cotton-seed  oil, 
402 — Testimony  of  chemists  as  to  natural  color,  403 — Oleomargarine  colored  for 
same  reasons  as  butter,  405 — Artificial  color  invented  by  oleomargarine  makers, 
406 — Why  State  laws  are  not  repealed,  406 — Curious  story  of  labor  federations, 
407 — Can  not  stop  traffic  in  colored  oleomargarine,  407 — Collection  of  the  tax, 
408— The  color  question,  409. 

DAVIS,  ISAAC  W.,  president  Philadelphia  Produce  Exchange — For  the  bill — Grout 
bill  most  effective  method  of  stopping  the  fraud,  230 — Wadsworth  bill  no  good 
for  hotels  or  restaurants,  231. 

DILLON,  J.  J.,  editor  Rural  New  Yorker — For  the  bill — How  bill  is  looked  upon  by 
farmers,  373 — The  color  question,  374 — Why  color  is  reprehensible  in  oleomar- 
garine, 374 — Attempt  to  compel  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine  as  such  in  New 
York  State,  376 — Wadsworth  bill  able  work  of  makers  of  oleomargarine,  376 — 
Fraud  admitted  at  the  boarding  houses,  377 — Fraud  in  Paterson,  N.  J.,  377 — 
Object  of  coloring  is  to  sell  as  butter  and  at  butter  prices,  377 — Facilities  for 
making  all  butter  country  can  consume,  379. 

DOLAN,  PATRICK,  president  United  Mineworkers  Association — Against  the  bill — Is 
white  oleomargarine  good  enough  for  the  workingman,  307 — Supply  and  prices 
of  butter,  307 — National  law  unjust,  308, — People  know  what  they  are  buying, 
308 — Pride  of  the  poor,  309 — Why  disreputable  to  purchase  oleomargarine,  309 — 
Butter  is  never  white,  310. 

DRENNEN,  W.  F.,  Philadelphia  butter  merchant — For  the  bill — Why  I  favor  Grout 
bill,  224 — Oleomargarine  largely  sold  as  butter — Amount  sold  as  butter,  224 — 
No  wholesaler  wants  it  sold  for  what  it  is,  225 — Average  buyer  doesn't  want 
oleomargarine,  225 — Work  of  irresponsible  dealers,  225— .Wadsworth  bill  the 
worst  thing  we  could  have,  226 — Sale  of  $50,000  per  year  as  butter  by  one 
retailer,  226 — Sellers'  guarantee  of  protection,  226 — What  renovated  butter  is 
made  of,  226. 

EDSON,  E.  D.,  Philadelphia  butter  merchant — For  the  bill — Dealers  admit  they  must 
sell  oleomargarine  as  butter,  222 — How  it  is  disposed  of,  223. 

FLANDERS,  Hon.  G.  L.,  assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture  of  New  York — For  the 
bill — Oleomargarine  thrives  upon  fraud — Consumer  a  big  element  in  this  fight — 
Oleomargarine  sold  as  butter — History  of  laws  of  New  York  State,  121 — Fraud  on 
large  scale — Testing  of  laws,  122 — Question  of  interstate  commerce,  123 — Why 
right  was  given  Congress  to  regulate  interstate  commerce,  124 — Police  powers 
under  State  laws — The  Plumley  decision,  124 — Butter  imitated — Fraudulent  sale 
of  oleomargarine  in  New  York,  125 — Ten-cent  tax  would  stop  fraud — Why  color 
butter? — Heathfulness  of  oleomargarine,  127 — Paraffin  in  oleomargarine,  128 — 
Dr.  Clark's  statement  as  to  healthfulness,  129-136 — Comparative  digestibility  of 
oleomargarine  and  butter,  144 — Patents  for  making  oleomargarine,  129 — Horse 
oil  used  in  oleomargarine — New  York's  dairy  interest,  134 — Sold  as  butter,  135. 

GAGE,  Hon.  LYMAN  J.,  Secretary  of  Treasury — Called  upon  by  committee  for  infor- 
mation— Objection  to  Grout  bill,  561 — Revenue  on  oleomargarine  well  collected, 
562 — Percentage  of  loss  of  revenue,  562 — Offenses  against  national  laws,  562 — 
Where  information  of  violations  comes  from,  563 — Visit  of  inspectors  to  factories, 
564 — No  scientific  inspectors  to  investigate — No  revenue  agents  in  factories,  564 — 
Government  agents  do  not  report  on  purity  of  ingredients  used,  564 — Force 
inadequate  for  enforcement  in  places,  565 — Opinion  of  Wadsworth  bill,  566 — 
Difference  between  offenses  under  present  law  and  Wadsworth  bill,  566. 

GARDNER,  RATHBONE,  attorney  for  Oakdale  Manufacturing  Company,  Providence, 
R.  I. — Against  the  bill — Believe  bill  will  destroy  oleomargarine  industry — Meas- 
ure not  honest,  15 — Constitutionality  not  questioned,  15 — Congress  no  right  to 
prevent  fraud  through  taxation — Oppressive  State  laws  would  be  made  effective, 
16 — Rhode  Island  permits  sale  of  colored  oleomargarine,  16 — Imitates  butter 
with  every  ingredient,  17 — Color  given  oleomargarine  by  ingredients — Inspection 
by  Government,  18 — Healthfulness  of  oleomargarine — Fraudulent  sales  of  oleo- 
margarine— Evidence  of  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  19 — Oleomargarine 
as  butter — Oleomargarine  sold  to  consumers,  20 — Price  of  oleomargarine,  21 — 
Natural  color  of  oleomargarine — Renovated  butter,  22 — Food  effects  on  butter, 
22 — Inspection  by  Government,  25 — Purity  of  oleomargarine,  26 — Fraudulent 
sales,  27 — Condition  in  Massachusetts,  28— More  of  renovated  or  process  butter, 
29— Repeal  State  laws,  33— Color  not  butter's  trade-mark,  33— Butter  always 
colored,  34 — Present  kind  of  color  originated  by  oleomargarine  faakers,  35-— 


878  .  INDEX. 

Doesn't  compete  with  butter  of  higher  grade,  35 — Quality  of  butter  made,  36 — 
Use  of  paraffin — Intended  to  destroy  industry,  37 — Purpose  of  State  laws  shown, 
38 — Oleomargarine  can't  pay  10-cent  tax,  38 — Cost  of  renovated  butter — Uncol- 
ored  oleomargarine  can  not  be  sold,  39 — Color  not  to  resemble  butter — Attention 
called  to  renovated-butter  bill,  40 — Interest  of  cattlemen  in  oleomargarine,  41 — 
What  is  neutral  lard?  41 — Precise  wording  of  Grout  bill,  42. 

GIBSON,  ROBERT,  Dallas,  Tex. — Statement — Against  the  bill— Statement  of  injury  that 
would  be  done  cotton-seed  oil  industry — Where  members  of  Cotton-seed  Crushers' 
Association  are  located,  738. 

GROSVENOR,  Hon.  E.  O.,  food  commissioner  of  Michigan — For  bill — Letter  filed,  447. 

GROUT,  Hon.  W.  W. — For  bill — Explanation  of  bill,  3 — Discussion  of  Wilson  interstate- 
commerce  law — Original-package  decision,  4 — Explanation  of  10-cent  tax — Man- 
ufacturers of  oleomargarine  and  fraud — Constitutionality  of  tax,  5 — Profits  in  sale 
of  oleomargarine,  7 — Difference  between  coloring  oleomargarine  and  butter,  8 — 
Wads  worth  bill  scheme  of  Wm.  Lorimer — Does  not  protect  consumer  at  table, 
570 — Butter  at  Delmonico's  white,  573 — Cost  of  oleomargarine,  574. 

HABECKER,  JOHN  J.,  Philadelphia  butter  merchant — For  the  bill— Few  people  buy 
oleomargarine  knowingly — History  of  oleomargarine's  imitations  of  the  various 
grades  of  butter,  217 — Oleomargarine  business  is  fraud  all  through,  218 — Why 
oleomargarine  is  not  sold  honestly,  219. 

HAKE,  J.  A.,  president  South  Omaha  Live  Stock  Exchange — Against  the  bill — Mag- 
nitude of  Nebraska  beef  interests,  739 — Receipts  of  cattle  in  South  Omaha — 
Uncolored  oleomargarine  is  unsalable,  740— Memorial  from  South  Omaha  Ex- 
change against  Grout  bill,  741 — Letter  from  S.  S.  Hadley,  Cedar  Rapids,  Nebr. — 
Letter  from  J.  B.  Tierney,  Ansley,  Nebr.— Letter  from  S.  P.  Delatour,  742— Letter 
from  T.  B.  Hord, .  Central  City,  Nebr.,  743— Letter  from  R.  M.  Allen,  Ames, 
Nebr. — Letter  from  John  Reimers,  Grand  Island,  Nebr. — Letter  from  N.  L.  An- 
derson, Sacramento,  Nebr. — Letter  from  Matt  Dougherty,  Sydney,  Nebr.,  744 — 
Amount  of  oleomargarine  sold  in  Nebraska  last  year — Prices  of  oleomargarine  and 
butter,  746 — Letter  from  F.  H.  M.  Woods,  South  Omaha  Live  Stock  Exchange — 
Letter  from  George  Harvey,  Kearney,  Nebr. — Letter  from  A.  M.  Treat,  Chappell, 
Nebr.,  747. 

HAMILTON,  Hon.  JOHN,  secretary  of  agriculture  of  Pennsylvania — For  the  bill — 
Indorsements  of  Grout  bill — Pennsylvania  is  pledged  to  it — Difficulties  of  enforce- 
ment of  State  laws,  152 — The  constitutional  question — Do  the  States  know  what 
they  want?  153 — Bill  is  constitutional,  154 — Healthfulness  of  oleomargarine, 
155 — Digestibility,  156 — How  dairy  interests  would  be  affected  with  oleomarga- 
rine, 157 — Evidence  of  fraud  corroborated  by  every  food  commissioner — Grout 
bill  will  overcome  all  difficulties,  160. 

HANNAH,  W.  S.,  president  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange — Against  the  bill — 
Waste  products  of  packing  industry,  673 — Room  enough  for  both  products  in  the 
market — Grout  bill  is  not  just  legislation,  674. 

HEWES,  JAMES,  president  Produce  Exchange  of  Baltimore — For  the  bill — Serving 
oleomargarine  at  hotel  or  restaurant  a  legal  sale,  457 — History  of  legislation  on 
oleomargarine — First  legislation  in  Maryland,  647 — Revenue  officers  do  not  attend 
to  police  portion  of  bill — Conversation  with  district  attorney,  648 — Judge  Loch  ren's 
reversal  of  opinion — Why  commerce  clause  is  wanted,  650 — Uncolored  oleomar- 
garine deceives  no  one — Could  uncolored  oleomargarine  find  sale? — Best  New 
York  hotels  use  uncolored  butter — Color  of  uncolored  oleomargarine,  651 — Jus- 
tice Harlan's  opinion  of  coloring  oleomargarine,  652. 

HOARD,  Hon.  W.  D.,  president  National  Dairy  Union — For  the  bill — Purpose  of  bill — 
Difference  between  coloring  oleomargarine  and  butter — Coloring  winter  butter, 
11 — Canada  forbids  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  any  form — Groyt 
bill  needed  for  promotion  of  honesty,  113— The  overriding  of  the  State  laws, 
583 — Oleomargarine  the  poor  man's  butter — Repressive  taxation — Comparative 
statement  of  output — Object  of  tax  on  oleomargarine,  584 — Experience  of  France 
in  healthfulness — England's  experience  with  healthfulness — About  the  colonng 
of  oleomargarine— Coloring  of  butter — President  Cleveland's  message  regarding 
fraud — Oleomargarine  business  is  not  legitimate — The  innocuousness^of  oleomar- 
garine has  not  been  shown,  585 — Melting  point  of  oleomargarine— Where  butter 
fat  is  found — Butter  fat  unlike  any  other  fat — Grout  bill  no  hardship  to  con- 
sumers— Oleomargarine  prohibited  in  Canada — A  farm  paper's  criticism  of  the 
National  Live  Stock  Association,  586 — Whom  the  Grout  bill  is  pushed  by,  587. 

HOBBS,  JOHN  S.,  editor  National  Provisioner— Against  the  bill— Pure  and  impure 
foods — Composition  of  normal  butter,  712— Comparison  of  salted  butter  and 
oleomargarine — Digestibilities  of  the  butters,  713 — Heat-producing  fats  and  their 
digestibility — The  birth  of  butterine,  714 — Stearin  in  cotton-seed  oil — A  painted 
virgin — The  sterilization  of  milk  as  a  guard  against  disease — Oleomargarine  the 


INDEX.  879 

product  of  sterilized  fats  and  milk,  715— Investigation  of  herds  of  famous  cheese 
district— Does  Congress  desire  to  form  a  butter  trust?— A  40  per  cent  fraud, 
716— Housewives  know  that  oleomargarine  is  colored— The  public  has  not 
yet  asked  protection  against  oleomargarine— Paraffin  unnecessary,  717— State- 
ment of  how  oleomargarine  is  made — Oleo  oil  made  from  caul  fat  of  beeves — 
About  the  price  of  butter  in  New  York,  718 — Oleomargarine  fraud  in  New 
jergey — Discussion  of  renovated  butter,  719 — The  workings  of  a  butterine  factory — 
Origin  of  the  ingredients — Temperatures  at  which  fats  are  melted,  720 — The 
finished  product,  721 — Butter  prices  for  sixteen  years  in  New  York — Process 
butter,  how  made,  722. 

JAMISON,  SAMUEL,  Philadelphia  butter  merchant— For  the  bill— Difficulty  of  enforc- 
ing State  laws,  231 — We  are  not  the  police  power,  232 — Oleomargarine  is  not  sold 
as  such,  232 — Grout  bill  will  relieve  great  expense,  233 — Wholesale  dealers  asked 
to  enter  fictitious  names,  234 — Highest  prices  butter  white,  235 — No  law  will  stop 
fraud  while  oleomargarine  is  colored,  235. 

JELKE,  JOHN  F.,  of  Braun  &  Fitts,  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine,  Chicago — Against 
the  bill — No  objection  to  legislation  for  identification — What  10-cent  tax  would 
make  it  cost — Importance  of  color  to  palatableness,  382 — Butter  prices  kept  down 
by  oleo,  382 — Consumption  of  oleomargarine  in  England — Retail  dealers  the  prin- 
cipal violators — Oleomargarine  will  stand  on  its  own  merits,  383 — Advertising 
oleomargarine,  384 — Branding  of  oleomargarine,  386 — Amount  of  oleomargarine 
fraudulently  sold,  387 — Processes  for  renovating  butter,  387 — Advertisement  of 
butter  color,  388 — Internal-Revenue  Department  should  investigate  renovated 
butter — Advocate  Wadsworth  bill,  390 — Extract  from  Cleveland's  message — Don't 
rob  oleomargarine  of  one  of  its  first  qualities,  391. 

KAUPMANN,  LUTHER  F.,  attorney  for  Pennsylvania  Pure  Butter  Protective  Associa- 
tion— For  the  bill — History  of  laws  of  Pennsylvania,  236 — Attempts  to  secure 
enforcement  of  national  law — Fraud  rampant  in  Philadelphia,  237 — Every  dealer 
selling  oleomargarine  as  butter — Incentive  for  fraud,  238 — Concealing  of  original 
packages,  239 — Wadsworth  bill  vastly  more  damaging  than  any  legislation  Con- 
gress could  enact,  240 — Dairymen  not  interfering  with  oleo,  but  vice  versa,  240 — 
Healthfulness  question  in  doubt — Transmission  of  tuberculosis  through  oleo  oil, 
241 — Germs  not  killed  in  raw  materials — Opinions  of  chemists  v.  physicians, 
242  —Temptation  to  sell  for  butter  when  colored,  243 — Should  laws  be  violated 
while  in  dispute?  244 — No  law  ever  passed  that  oleo  people  did  not  claim  uncon- 
stitutional— Viciousness  of  Wadsworth  bill,  245 — Where  oleomargarine  is  sold — 
Fraud  in  name  of  seller  of  oleomargarine,  246 — Tricks  to  evade  law,  247 — Why 
Grout  bill  should  be  passed,  248 — Why  not  sell  butter  white,  248 — Cost  of  oleo- 
margarine, 249 — Who  represents  the  farmers,  250 — Have  live-stock  men  ever 
heard  other  side?  250— Prices  of  butter,  252. 

KIMBALL,  B.  F.,  buttermanof  Philadelphia— For  the  bill — Would  solve  the  oleomar- 
garine question — Simply  ask  they  be  compelled  to  comply  with  the  law — Amount 
of  oleomargarine  sold  in  Pennsylvania — Must  sell  at  butter  prices  to  be  success- 
ful— Cost  of  enforcing  State  laws — Ninety  pei  cent  of  oleomargarine  sold  as  but- 
ter, 631 — Will  be  within  reach  of  poor  man  under  Grout  bill,  632 — Why  tax  the 
uncolored  anything? — The  toniest  people  use  white  butter,  633 — -Would  not  the 
10-cent  tax  drive  colored  oleomargarine  out  of  the  market? — Will  the  Grout  bill 
stop  the  fraud? — Is  not  the  object  to  drive  colored  oleo  out  of  the  market?  634 — 
More  openly  sold  in  eastern  Pennsylvania — About  the  first  section  of  the  bill, 
635 — Think  it  will  to  a  large  extent  drive  colored  oleomargarine  out — Fifteen 
cents  a  pound  butter,  636. 

KNIGHT,  CHAS.  Y.,  secretary  National  Dairy  Union — For  the  bill — Grocer's  clerk's 
statement  of  fraud  in  Chicago — Oleomargarine  sold  as  butter  in  eight  out  of 
ten  places — Production  and  exhibition  of  swindling  sign,  461 — Manufacturers' 
connection  with  fraud — Production  of  photograph  of  store  front  where  butter  is 
advertised  and  oleomargarine  sold  exclusively,  462 — How  the  Illinois  food 
department  was  beaten — Amount  of  oleomargarine  produced  in  Chicago — Num- 
ber of  retail  dealers  in  the  United  States — Number  of  retail  dealers  in  Chicago — 
Amount  illegally  sold — Fraud  shown  in  concealed  marks — Fraudulent  use  of 
brand  of  butter,  463 — Using  colored  wrapper  to  conceal  marks,  464 — Attempt 
to  enforce  State  laws  in  Illinois — Fraud  defended  by  manufacturers,  565 — Guar-^ 
anty  of  protection  by  William  J.  Moxley  and  Braun  &  Fitts  in  case  of  prose- 
cution for  fraud,  466 — Defending  sellers  of  oleomargarine  for  butter,  467 — 
W.  J.  Moxley 's  defense  of  seller  of  illicitly  made  oleomargarine — Cost  of 
attempts  to  enforce  State  laws — Oleomargarine  makers  still  defending  violators 
who  sell  oleomargarine  for  butter,  468 — Profit  in  sale  of  oleomargarine — Seventy- 
five  per  cent  of  oleomargarine  sold  as  butter  in  Chicago—  Difficulty  of  enforce- 
ment of  State  laws,  469 — Revocation  of  charter  of  Capital  City  Dairy  Com- 


880 

pany  in  Ohio  for  violations  of  State  laws,  469 — Oleomargarine  at  30  cents  a 
pound,  470 — Offer  of  $7,500  in  settlement  of  cases  prosecuted  by  Government 
for  fraud,  471 — Indictments  against  president  of  Standard  Butterine  Company, 
of  Washington,  for  fraud — Source  of  labor  resolutions,  471 — Colored  oleo- 
margarine condemned  by  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  by  unanimous  vote, 
472 — Fraud  in  Cincinnati,  473 — Large  percentage  sold  as  butter,  473 — Protec- 
tion of  retailers  at  Cincinnati,  474 — Letters  from  Cincinnati  telling  of  frauds, 
474  and  475 — "Push  sale  of  oleomargarine  and  build  up  reputation  for  good 
butter,"  477 — Amount  of  color  in  1,000,000  pounds  of  oleomargarine — Amount 
in  1,000,000  pounds  of  butter,  479 — Color  of  butter  75  per  cent  natural,  480— 
Prices  of  butter — Receipts  of  butter,  481 — Receipts  of  butter  in  New  York  since 
1890,  481— Cause  of  advance  in  1899,  482— Value  of  cotton  crop— Value  of 
products  or  cotton-seed  oil  in  the  United  States — Proportion  used  in  oleomar- 
garine made  in  this  country,  487 — Why  tax  uncolored  oleomargarine? — What 
renovated  butter  is  made  from,  489 — No  objection  to  red  color  in  oleomargarine, 
490 — Makers  sympathize  with  fraudulent  dealers — ' '  Covering-up  dealers  "- 
The  Aurora  Produce  Company  swindle,  491 — Refusal  of  manufacturers  to  show 
books — Refusal  of  manufacturers  to  make  returns — Makers  of  oleomargarine 
swear  inspection  of  books  would  furnish  evidence  that  would  incriminate  them, 
493 — Fraud  shown  Collector  Coyne  by  Chicago  Record,  495 — Why  all  butter 
men  don't  sell  oleomargarine,  497 — Difficulty  of  securing  evidence  against 
illicit  venders,  498 — Scheme  by  which  oleomargarine  is  sold  as  butter  with  little 
chance  of  detection,  498 — Why  Grout  bill  will  protect,  499 — About  Government 
" inspection"  of  oleomargarine — Number  of  analyses  made  by  Government  last 
year,  499 — What  is  renovated  butter  made  of,  534 — No  acids  used  in  renovated 
butter,  534 — Process  of  manufacture,  534 — Quantity  made  compared  with  whole 
volume  of  butter  produced  in  United  States,  536— Why  anticolor  laws  are  not 
applicable  to  process  butter — Where  process  butter  is  made,  537 — How  sale  of 
butter  is  damaged  by  oleomargarine,  530 — Chemists  can't  distinguish  renovated 
butter — Bacteria  in  butter,  538 — Original  bonds  produced  showing  connection 
of  Braun  &  Fitts  and  William  J.  Moxley  with  defense  of  sellers  of  oleomarga- 
rine as  butter,  552 — Amount  of  oleomargarine  made  by  two  concerns  openly 
defending  fraud,  553 — Letter  from  Cincinnati  relating  to  resolutions,  554 — 
Butter  board's  estimate  of  amount  of  fraud  in  Chicago,  555 —Oleomargarine 
the  cause  of  demoralized  butter  market,  555 — Map  showing  States  which  have 
prohibited  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  in  imitation  of  butter,  557 — Agricultural 
Department  chart  showing  values  of  butter  for  ten  years,  558 — Evidence  of  amount 
of  caul  fat  and  oleo  oil  therefrom  in  steer,  559 — History  of  the  original  oleomar- 
garine law — Provisions  of  the  Hatch  bill,  588 — Recommended  a  ten-cent  tax — 
Expected  law  to  be  enforced — What  has  the  Internal-Revenue  Department  done, 
589 — Why  the  ten-cent  tax  is  necessary — Difficulties  of  enforcing  State  laws,  590 — 
How  the  public  is  defrauded — Fraud  encouraged  by  manufacturers,  591 — Tax  will 
be  collected  if  imposed,  592 — Laws  of  the  various  States  in  relation  to  oleomar- 
garine, 593,  594,  495,  596,  597,  598, 599— Dealers  do  not  pretend  to  obey  State  laws- 
Must  be  sold  as  butter  to  be  a  success,  600— Best  lawyers  always  employed  to 
defend  violators,  601— Number  of  dealers  and  amount  of  oleomargarine  sold  in 
various  States,  602— Magnitude  of  the  oleomargarine  industry— Swift  &  Co.'s 
absurd  figures,  603 — Ingredients  of  oleomargarine — Caul  fat  in  oleomargarine, 
604 — Ingredients  not  rendered  innocuous  by  cooking — Process  of  manufacturing 
oleomargarine,  605 — Ocular  demonstration  of  fraud,  637 — Sold  as  oleomargarine 
at  20  cents  and  as  butter  at  25  cents — Paraffin  in  oleomargarine,  638 — Fraud  in 
colored  wrappers — Failure  of  Congressmen  to  find  marks,  639. 

KRACKE,  F.  J.  H.,  assistant  commissioner  of  agriculture  of  New  York — For  the  bill- 
How  oleomargarine  is  sold  by  peddlers  in  New  York  City,  365 — How  handi- 
capped, 366— State  law  regarding  board  ing  houses— Scheme  for  defrauding,  367— 
One  thousand  convictions  for  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter,  368 — Amount  of 
oleomargarine  sold  in  New  York  State,  369 — Sales  of  oleomargarine  outside  the 
State  just  as  damaging  to  the  producer,  372 — Cost  of  enforcing  State  laws,  370. 

LAVERY,  C.  N.,  representing  Swift  &  Co.,  of  Kansas  City— Against  the  bill— Grout 
bill  means  the  wiping  out  of  the  industry,  792— Provisions  of  present  law,  792 — 
Manufacturers  encourage  handling  according  to  law,  793 — Both  oleomargarine 
and  butter  should  be  colored,  794— Sale  of  oleomargarine  for  butter,  795— Why 
not  brand  all  packages  at  factory,  796— Stamping  of  the  wrappers,  796— Testi- 
mony of  chemists  referred  to,  797 — Demand  for  oleomargarine  due  to  education, 
798 — Poor  people  would  not  buy  uncolored  oleomargarine,  798 — Chief  work  of 
department,  765 — Ingredients  that  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine, 
765 — Investigations  occasionally  made  regarding  purity,  765— Ingredients  will 
become  offensive  if  not  properly  used,  766 — Report  on  examination  of  ingredi- 
ents, 768. 


INDEX.  881 

LESTRADE,  FRANCIS  W.,  butter  dealer  and  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine — Against 
the  bill — How  farm  butter  is  made  and  shipped — What  labels  comprise — Imita- 
tion creamery — Creamery  butter — Process  butter,  165— Oleomargarine  no  detri- 
ment to  butter,  166 — Quality  of  butter  compared  with  years  ago,  167 — Quick 
production  of  butter,  168 — Prices  of  butter,  172 — Corner  in  butter,  174 — Trade  of 
1900,  175 — Exports  of,  176 — Not  30,000  pounds  uncolored  oleomargarine  sold  in 
United  States,  178 — Australian  industry,  179 — More  about  butter  prices,  215 — 
Butter  trust,  216. 

McCoy,  JOHN  C.,  representing  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange — Against  the  bill — 
Healthfulness  of  oleo,  64 — Grout  bill  aims  at  life  of  industry — Cost  of  butter  to 
the  people,  65 — Organization  of  the  creamery  interests — Amount  of  caul  fat — 
Live-stock  statistics  for  Kansas  City,  66 — Loss  to  live-stock  interest  if  bill  should 
pass — How  price  of  co\vs  would  be  affected  by  Grout  bill,  67 — Value  of  cows — 
Value  of  hogs  and  loss  on,  68 — Tax  paid  by  oleomargarine — Cattle  interests  only 
asked  protection  once,  70 — Resolutions  of  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange,  71 — 
Grout  bill  aims  at  life  of  great  commercial  industry — Magnitude  of  live-stock 
industry — Reference  to  authorities  on  healthfulness  of  oleomargarine,  675 — Class, 
legislation  of  the  most  objectionable  character — Ingredients  of  oleomargarine — 
Value  of  the  ingredients  of  oleomargarine — Loss  on  ingredients  which  make  up 
oleomargarine  if  bill  is  passed — Cattle  in  United  States  January  1, 1900,  and  value 
of,  676 — Loss  to  labor  and  manufacturers — Cattle  States  and  dairy  States,  677 — 
Things  Grout  bill  asks  you  to  do — What  food  legislation  should  aim  at,  678 — 
Fixing  the  price  of  butter — Milch  cows  in  the  United  States — Extract  from  Orange 
Judd  Farmer  on  cow  situation — Infers  colored  oleomargarine  is  a  harmless  article 
of  food,  679 — Reference  to  tuberculosis  in  milk — Per  cent  of  animals  in  dairy 
herds  infected  with  tuberculosis — Inspection  of  animals  at  stock  yards,  680 — Seal 
of  condemnation  on  oleo  oil — Explanation  of  discrepancy  of  statements  on  live- 
stock question,  681 — Estimate  of  $2  per  head  loss  on  cattle,  682 — Can  diseased 
meat  be  gotten  on  the  market  at  present,  683 — Passage  of  Grout  bill  would  pro- 
hibit manufacture  of  oleomargarine — No  complaint  from  consumers,  685 — Stamp 
on  the  oleomargarine  package — Retail  price  of  oleomargarine  in  Kansas  City — 
Discussion  of  reduction  of  tax  on  colored  oleomargarine,  686 — Palatability  of 
uncolored  oleomargarine — Possibility  of  diseased  fat  in  oleo  oil — The  exportation 
of  oleo  oil,  687 — Effect  of  exports  upon  domestic  market  values — From  whom 
does  demand  for  this  bill  come,  688— Three  classes  interested  in  passage  of  Grout 
bill,  689 — Experience  of  Congressman  Bailey  in  the  Washington  market — Prices 
of  butter  and  butterine  in  Washington,  690 — Hard  times  and  cattlemen — Cattle 
depreciated  over  $9,000,000  on  account  of  hard  times,  691. 

MCNAMEE,  J.  F.,  vice-president  and  chairman  of  legislative  committee  Columbus 
Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Columbus,  Ohio — Against  the  bill — Labor  dis- 
cussed— Want  to  perpetuate  employment  of  men  making  oleomargarine,  351 — 
If  oleomargarine  is  suppressed  butter  will  be  high,  352 — Grout  bill  means 
destruction  of  industry — Establishes  a  precedent,  353 — Use  of  oleomargarine 
prosecutions  for  political  purposes,  354 — Always  accustomed  to  eating  butter  yel- 
low, 355 — Oleomargarine's  keeping  qualities,  357 — Why  not  eat  all  olemar- 
garine  white,  358 — Eating  oleomargarine  no  disgrace,  359 — Resolutions  of  Chi- 
cago Federation  of  Labor  against,  360 — Resolutions  Horseshoers'  Union,  361 — 
Resolutions  of  decorators  of  Cleveland,  362 — Credentials  from  organization, 
504 — Reprisal  against  labor  threatened,  505 — Would  make  butter  55  or  60  cents, 
507 — Resolutions  Cleveland  Building  Trades  Council,  508 — Senator  Allen's  expe- 
rience, 509 — Fooling  the  old  lady,  510 — Amount  caul  fat — Temperature  raw- 
materials  of  oleomargarine  heated  to — Method  of  making  oleo  oil — Stearin  in 
all  oils — Paraffin  from  petroleum,  510 — Number  cattle  slaughtered  in  United 
States — Amount  lard  used  in  oleomargarine — Amount  cotton-seed  oil — Percentage 
ingredients  in  oleomargarine — Cotton-seed  oil  not  a  necessary  ingredient,  511 — 
Distinguishing  oleomargarine  from  butter — Melting  point  of  oleomargarine  and 
butter,  512 — Clarifying  point  of  oleomargarine,  513. 

MEDAIRY,  SUMMERFIELD  B.,  president  Baltimore  Pure  Butter  Protective  Association — 
For  the  bill — Fraud  in  Baltimore — All  oleomargarine  was  sold  as  butter,  440 — 
Why  Grout  bill  is  wanted,  441. 

MILLER,  W.  E.,  representing  Armour  &  Co.,  Kansas  City — Against  the  bill — Invest- 
ment in  oleomargarine  business — Color  of  oleomargarine — Can't  pay  10-cent  tax, 
47 — Digestive  experiments,  48 — New  York  butter  receipts,  50 — Butter  market 
conditions,  51 — Senator  Warner  Miller's  remarks,  52 — Political  methods  of 
National  Dairy  Union,  52 — Percentage  of  butter — Coloring  used — Fats  used, 
54 — Paraffin  in  oleomargarine,  55 — Oleo  oil,  how  made,  56 — Petition  of  South 
St.  Paul  stockmen,  57 — Resolution  of  Cotton  Oil  Crushers'  Association,  58 — Oleo- 
margarine, exports  of,  59 — Resolutions  of  Sioux  City  Live  Stock  Exchange,  60 — 

S.  Rep.  2043 56 


882  INDEX. 

Resolutions,  Kansas  City  Commercial  Club,  61 — Resolutions,  Kansas  City  Mer- 
cantile Club,  62 — Attempt  to  defeat  Hon.  James  A.  Tawney,  63 — How  packers 
elected  Congressman  Cowherd,  64 — History  of  coloring  oleomargarine  and  but- 
ter, 779 — Failure  to  sell  uncolored  oleomargarine,  780— Butterine  an  up-to-date 
product,  780 — Dealers  do  not  sell  oleomargarine  promiscuously  as  butter,  781 — 
Amount  of  caul  fat  per  steer,  799. 

NOBLE,  I.  B.,  food  commissioner  of  Connecticut — Letter  indorsing  Grout  bill,  447. 

NORTON,  B.  P.,  food  commissioner  of  Iowa — Letter  indorsing  Grout  bill,  447. 

NORRIS,  E.  B.,  president  New  York  State  Grange,  and  representing  National  Grange — 
For  the  bill — Statement  filed,  412 — National  Grange  wants  Grout  bill — New  York 
State  Grange  wrants  the  Grout  bill — People  are  being  forced  to  use  oleomargarine 
against  their  inclinations  and  desires. 

OLIVER,  FRED,  representing  cotton-seed  oil  interests  of  North  and  South  Carolina — 
Against  the  bill — Protest  against  passage  of  bill — By  whom  are  such  bills  intro- 
duced— Object  to  create  a  scarcity  of  low-grade  butter,  663 — Doubt  if  good 
butter  makers  are  interested — Believe  country  butter  largely  adulterated — No 
makers  of  "Gilt  Edge  Elgin  Creamery"  or  "Philadelphia  prints"  asking  for  the 
passage  of  bill — Makers  of  oleomargarine,  if  any,  should  have  monopoly  on  color — 
Will  encourage  moonshine  oleomargarine,  664 — Farmers  will  become  skilled  in 
evading  laws — Revenue  detective  service  will  have  to  be  increased — Grout  bill 
unnecessary  and  harmful  to  our  business — Value  of  cotton-seed  oil  business,  665 — 
Oleomargarine  is  healthful  and  clean — Why  not  tax  cotton,  because  it  is  sup- 
planting wool?  666 — Value  of  cotton-seed  oil  output — Amount  paid  farmers  for 
seed — Cotton-seed  oil  used  in  oleomargarine — Value  of  cotton-seed  oil,  667 — 
Healthfulness  of  cotton-seed  oil — Corruption  in  sale  of  clothing,  668 — The  South 
has  no  interest  in  dairies — Cost  of  oleomargarine,  669 — "Oleomargarine  has 
always  been  colored  and  butter  has  not,"  670 — Discussion  of  color  question — 
Amount  of  cotton-seed  oil  used  in  oleomargarine,  671 — Use  of  stearin  in  oleo- 
margarine, 672 — Any  farmer  can  make  butterine,  673. 

PAUL,  GEORGE  E.,  oleomargarine  dealer,  Philadelphia — Against  the  bill — Difference 
in  color  of  butter — Quality  of  butter,  540 — When  oleomargarine  was  introduced, 
541 — Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  542 — History  of  prosecutions  in  Pennsylvania,  542 — 
"Persecution"  under  State  laws,  544 — If  oleomargarine  were  driven  out  cream- 
ery system  would  suffer,  546 — If  nonsensical  State  laws  were  repealed — Propor- 
tion of  uncolored  oleo — Consumer  won't  buy  uncolored  butter  any  more,  547— 
Prices  of  butter,  548 — Oleomargarine  never  quoted  in  open  market,  548 — Propor- 
tion of  labor  idle  in  rural  districts,  550 — Oleomargarine  sells  best  when  butter  is 
high — What  is  a  good  price  for  butter,  551. 

PERSON,  WILLIAM,  of  Ammon  &  Person,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  dealers  in  oleomargarine — 
Against  the  bill — Legal  machinery  of  New  Jersey — Labels  used  on  oleomargarine 
in  New  Jersey — Price  of  butter,  331 — Decrease  in  number  of  cattle,  332 — Price  of 
cows,  333 — Ability  of  cows  in  this  country  to  produce  milk,  334 — How  is  yellow 
oleomargarine  sold  in  New  Jersey,  334 — Color  of  butter,  335 — Decisions  of  New 
Jersey  courts — Oleomargarine  without  any  color  would  look  like  lard,  336 — Manu- 
facture of  oleomargarine  in  Holland— Benefit  of  oleomargarine  to  the  farmer, 
337 — Major  Alvord's  letter  on  renovated  butter,  338 — Receipts  of  butter  in  New 
York — Agreement  on  distinct  color  proposed,  339 — Color  made  in  oleomargarine 
by  mixture  of  fats,  340 — Color  in  oleomargarine  can't  be  made  in  oleomargarine  by 
mixture  of  fats,  340 — Color  of  cotton-seed  oil  a  little  green,  341 — How  State  laws 
are  evaded  by  oleomargarine  dealers,  343. 

PIERCE,  JOHN,  representing  the  Amalgamated  Steel  Workers'  Association — Against 
the  bill — Price  of  oleomargarine — Pride  in  the  homes  of  workingmen,  311 — Don't 
want  oleomargarine  uncolored  because  it  doesn't  look  like  butter — Oleomargarine 
sold  as  butter,  312 — "I  never  eat  any  oleomargarine;  I  don't  have  to,"  313. 

PETERS,  E.  S.,  president  Cotton  Growers'  Association,  Calvert,  Tex. — Against  the 
bill — Acreage  of  cotton — Value  per  bale,  483 — Value  of  cotton  seed  484 — Put 
renovated  butter  in  oval  packages,  486 — Letter  from  Cotton  Growers'  Protective 
Association  of  Georgia,  487. 

PIRRUNG,  HENRY  C.,  manager  Capital  City  Dairy  Company,  Columbus,  Ohio — Maker 
of  oleomargarine — Against  the  bill — Natural  butter,  186 — How  oleomargarine  is 
made — Composition  of,  187 — Coloring  of  butter  twenty-five  years  ago — Color 
deceives  in  butter,  188 — The  pink  laws — Forbidding  of  coloring  in  oleomarga- 
rine, 189 — Decision  in  pink-law  case,  190 — Justice  Peckham  quoted  on  color,  190— 
Healthfulness  as  referred  to  in  Plumley  v.  Commonwealth,  191 — Prices  of  butter, 
colored  and  uncolored,  192 — Why  not  prohibit  oleomargarine  altogether  if  not 
healthful,  193 — Definition  of  adulteration — Who  asks  this  protection,  193 — Pal- 
atability  should  be  encouraged,  194 — Inspection  of  oleomargarine  by  Govern- 
ment, 194 — How  sold  in  District  of  Columbia,  195 — How  oleomargarine  is  marked 
under  new  rulings,  196 — Experience  of  Congressmen  in  District,  196. 


INDEX.  883 

READY,  EDWARD  S.,  representing  New  South  Oil  Company,  of  Little  Rock,  Ark. — 
Against  the  bill — Company's  investment  in  oil  mills — Employees  of  cotton-seed 
oil  mills — Butterine  industry  largely  affects  us,  731 — Discussion  of  Cotton-Seed 
Oil  Trust,  732. 

ROGERS,  W.  A.,  representing  board  of  trade  of  Watertown,  N.  Y. — For  the  bill — 
Statement  filed,  412— Why  the  Grout  bill  is  favored. 

ROYCE,  C.  H.,  manager  Morton  farm,  New  York — For  the  bill — Dairymen  have  the 
right  to  the  use  of  the  yellow  color,  379. 

SANSOM,  MARION,  representing  cattle  interests  of  Texas — Against  the  bill — Number 
of  cattle  raised  and  slaughtered  from  Texas,  732 — Grout  bill  advocates  ground 
not  well  taken,  734 — Class  legislation  that  we  do  not  think  right,  735 — People 
might  be  educated  to  eat  uncolored  oleomargarine,  736. 

SCHELL,  CHARLES  E.,  representing  the  Ohio  Butterine  Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Jacob 
Dold  Butterine  Company,  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  and  Union  Dairy  Company,  Cleve- 
land, Ohio — Against  the  bill — Discrimination  condemned,  255 — Oleomargarine 
and  butter  almost  identical,  257 — Natural  color  of  oleomargarine  and  butter, 
259 — Nutritive  qualities  of  oleomargarine,  260 — Used  in  majority  of  Soldiers' 
Homes,  261 — Oleomargarine  is  butter — Opposes  adulterations,  261 — Factories 
must  be  ready  for  Government  inspection — Both  oleomargarine  and  butter  are 
colored,  262 — Amount  of  color  in  butter — Color  requirements  of  various  mar- 
kets— Creamery  butter,  263 — Tilden  R.  and  Albert  French,  of  French  Brothers 
Dairy  Company,  quoted,  264 — How  some  butter  is  made,  265 — Oleomargarine 
doesn't  imitate  butter,  266 — Milk  and  cream  used  in  oleomargarine — Use  of  acids 
in  renovated  butter,  267 — Packing  stock — Talk  of  a  trust — Oleomargarine  adver- 
tised by  retailers,  269 — What  makes  difference  in  price  of  various  grades  of  oleo, 
269 — Retailer  must  be  fair,  270 — Best  way  of  making  butter,  271 — Opponents  of 
Grout  bill — Destruction  of  industry — Can't  taste  be  cultivated  for  oleomargarine 
without  color,  271 — Effect  of  color  upon  the  palate,  272 — All  farm  products 
enhanced  in  value — Pride  of  poor  man,  273 — Commissioner  Wilson  quoted,  274 — 
Dr.  Wiley's  statements,  277 — "United  dairy  sentiment"  questioned — Con- 
sumers buy  direct — Conspiracy  denied,  280— Where  State  laws  are  enforced, 
281— Legal  side,  282— Officers  of  National  Dairy  Union,  282— Why  not  select 
another  color,  284 — Why  oleomargarine  makers  acquiesced  in  State  legislation, 
286 — Supreme  Court  decisions,  287 — Attitude  of  General  Grout,  289 — Enforce- 
ment in  Ohio,  290 — The  bill's  avowed  purpose  and  its  real  purpose,  291 — Have 
they  really  proven  any  amount  of  fraud,  291 — How  oleomargarine  is  sold,  292 — 
Federal  regulations,  293 — Ohio  pure-food  law,  294 — Present  law  sufficient,  Grout 
bill  prohibitive,  295 — Number  of  retail  oleomargarine  dealers  in  Ohio — Instruc- 
tions to  dealers,  296 — Notifying  hotel  and  restaurant  guests,  297 — Oleomargarine 
not  sold  for  butter,  301 — Manufacturers  do  not  defend  fraud,  302 — Effect  of 
Grout  bill — Evasions  of  friends  of  bill,  303 — Difference  between  Wadsworth  sub- 
stitute and  present  law,  305 — Grout  bill  only  reduces  tax — Fails  as  a  revenue 
measure — Summing  up,  306 — List  consumers  offered,  381 — Telegrams  offered,  568. 

SHARPLESS,  JOSEPH  C.,  Chester  County,  Pa.,  farmer  -For  the  bill — From  standpoint 
of  farmer — Use  of  his  brand  by  oleomargarine  maker,  220. 

SHARPLESS,  THOMAS,  Chester  County,  Pa.,  farmer — For  the  bill — Healthfulness  not 
the  question — We  color  butter — Depreciation  of  lands  in  value — Butter  sold  at  35 
cents,  228 — Experience  with  fraud  in  Pittsburg — What  milk  brings  for  butter 
making,  229. 

SPRINGER,  Hon.  W.  M.,  representing  National  Live  Stock  Association — Against  the 
bill — List  of  live-stock  associations — Values  of  live  stock — Resolutions  of  Fort 
Worth  convention,  77 — Speech  of  J.  S.  Hobbs,  79 — Prices  of  butter — Vote  on 
resolution,  80 — Statement  denounced  as  false,  81 — Claim  letter  to  be  forgery — 
Oleomargarine  combine,  82 — Bribery  of  merchants  denied  and  affirmed,  83 — Elec- 
tion of  Wadsworth,  84 — Report  of  committee  of  manufacturers — Healthfulness 
of  oleomargarine — Legality  of  color,  85 — Production  of  oleomargarine,  87 — Ingre- 
dients, 88 — Where  colored  article  is  prohibited,  89 — Amount  of  oleomargarine 
consumed  in  each  State,  90 — Per  capita  consumption  of,  91  What  will  become 
of  cow,  92 — Legal  aspects  of  color,  93 — Interstate-commerce  question  from  legal 
standpoint,  97 — Police  powers  of  States,  103 — Legality  of  taxation,  104 — Discus- 
sion of  Wilson  Act,  105, 106, 107— Constitutional  restrictions,  106— State  laws  will 
have  force,  108 — Attempt  to  tax  compound  lard,  108 — Renovated  butter,  109 — 
Why  not  protect  woolgrowers  from  shoddy,  110 — Inspection  of  oleomargarine 
factories — Discussion  of  Hatch  bill,  111 — Amount  caul  fat  used,  114 — Value  of 
fat  to  cattle  industry — Ingredients  of  oleomargarine,  115 — Value  of  fat  per  steer, 
116. 

STEPHENS,  Hon.  JOHN  H.,  of  Texas— Against  the  bill— Cattle  men  alert  to  their  inter- 
ests— Texas  live-stock  raisers  are  against  the  bill,  663. 


884  INDEX. 

THOMPSON,  WILLIAM  H.,  president  National  Live  Stock  Exchange — Against  the  bill — 
Number  of  cattle  in  the  United  States — Damage  by  passage  of  Grout  bill — Health- 
fulness  and  inspection  of  oleomargarine,  182 — Whom  oleomargarine  benefits — 
Why  not  color  one  if  the  other — Attempts  to  tax  one  industry  at  the  expense  of 
another,  183 — Price  of  oleomargarine,  184 — Resolutions  of  National  Live  Stock 
Association,  185. 

TOMPKINS,  A.  D.,  Charlotte,  N.  C.,  representing  cotton-seed  oil  mills — Against  the 
bill — Loss  of  $2  per  ton  on  cotton  seed — Price  of  cotton  seed,  315 — Right  of  peo- 
ple for  color,  316 — Why  no  petitions  from  the  South — Will  hear  from  constitu- 
ents— Anything  the  matter  with  the  coloring,  317 — Cotton-seed  oil  has  color  in 
it,  318 — Once  prejudice  against  cotton-seed  oil — Workingmen  do  not  question 
what  process  butter  is  made  by,  319 — Some  who  help  pass  Grout  bill  will  stay 
home  and  run  dairies,  329 — Estimate  of  proportion  of  total  product  of  cotton- 
seed oil  used  in  oleomargarine  in  this  country — Interest  in  oleomargarine,  121 — 
Healthfulness  of  oleomargarine — Bacteria  in  butter,  514 — Butter  made  of  swill- 
fed  cows,  515 — Use  of  cotton-seed  oil  in  Holland  and  Germany — Mixed  flour 
law — Sold  as  butter,  516 — Charge  renovated  butter  makers  back  of  bill — Farm- 
ers' interest — Resolutions  condemning  Grout  bill  defeated,  518 — Resolutions  from 
Cincinnati — Denial  that  oleomargarine  is  sold  as  butter  in  Cincinnati,  520 — 
Cotton-seed  oil's  interest  in  oleomargarine — ^Proportions  of  crop,  521 — Effect  of 
sales  of  oleomargarine  on  butter — Why  not  oleomargarine  occupy  whole  field, 
522 — Where  oleomargarine  took  prize  as  butter,  522 — Bacteria  in  butter — Decep- 
tion in  coloring  butter,  524 — Why  butter  is  colored,  525 — Color  of  butter  at  dif- 
ferent seasons,  527 — Standard  of  Philadelphia  market,  528 — Evidence  of  dodging 
national  law — White  butter  in  England,  529 — Most  butter  consumed  by  farmers 
unco'lored,  530 — Failure  of  attempts  to  sell  white  oleomargarine  in  Cincinnati, 
531 — How  much  has  duplicity  brought  oleomargarine  business  into  disrepute — 
Claim  90  percent  oleomargarine  sold  as  butter  in  Chicago — Why  not  remove 
stamp  as  easily  as  fail  to  affix — Why  increase  of  penalty. would  be  unwise,  532 — 
No  interest  in  enforcement  of  branding  clause  of  national  law,  532 — Coloring 
uncolored  oleomargarine,  533 — Tax  will  be  collected,  534. 

TILLINGHAST,  FRANK  W.,  president  Vermont  Manufacturing  Company,  makers  of 
oleomargarine,  Providence,  R.  I. — Against  the  bill — Communication  from  Hol- 
land Butterine  Company,  199 — Grout  bill  will  not  raise  revenue — State  laws  are 
sufficient — Rhode  Island  satisfied,  200 — More  fraud  where  colored  oleomargarine 
is  prohibited — How  oleomargarine  is  sold  in  Rhode  Island — Three-fourths  sold 
in  Massachusetts  in  original  packages — Not  more  than  25  per  cent  sold  as  butter — 
Every  ingredient  from  farm,  202 — Fraud  could  be  stopped  by  Wadsworth  sub- 
stitute, 203 — Effect  if  not  colored — Is  an  imitation  of  butter,  204 — Healthfulness 
of,  205 — Dr.  Wiley's  statement,  206— Difference  in  grades  of  oleomargarine, 
206 — Average  digestibility  of  oleomargarine  and  butter,  208 — Eastern  dealers  try 
to  market  goods  honestly,  210 — The  present  law,  212 — Hotels  and  restaurants, 
212 — Senator  Mason's  report — Change  in  Grout  bill  suggested,  213. 

WADSWORTH,  Hon.  J.  W. — Explanation  of  statement  regarding  letters  in  House  Agri- 
cultural Committee  minority  report,  159 — Appears  .for  Mr.  Lorimer — How  substi- 
tute will  prevent  fraud — Grout  bill  too  drastic — Ocular  demonstration  of  workings 
of  Wadsworth  substitute,  568. 

WALDEN,  G.  M.,  president  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange — Against  the  bill — Cat- 
tle killed  at  Kansas  City,  119 — Loss  on  cattle,  120 — Investigation  of  manufacture 
of  oleomargarine  requested — Committee  invited  to  go  to  Chicago  and  Kansas 
City,  674. 

WILEY,  Dr.  HARVEY  W.,  chief  chemist  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture — 
Invited  to  testify — Exhibition  of  chart  showing  difference  between  oleomarga- 
rine and  butter,  768 — Stearin  in  butter,  769 — Composition  of  fats  explained  and 
compared,  771 — Palatability  of  foods,  773 — Study  of  the  oleomargarine  question, 
773 — Color  in  butter  extracted,  773 — Variations  in  the  color  of  butter,  774 — 
Uncolored  butter  at  Dehnonico's,  775 — Use  of  glucose  in  oleomargarine  as  a  pre- 
servative, 776 — Stearin  in  oleomargarine  and  butter,  777 — Renovated  butter 
discussed  by  Dr.  Wiley,  778 — Corrected  statement  of  amount  of  stearin  in  oleo- 
margarine and  butter,  809 — Degree  of  heat  necessary  to  destroy  tubercle  germ, 
809 — All  food  products  carry  dangerous  germs,  810. 

WILSON,  Hon.  GEO.  W.,  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue — Invited  by  committee — 
Regards  10-cent  tax  on  colored  oleomargarine  prohibitive,  750 — Recommenda- 
tions as  to  change  in  law  to  make  it  more  effective — Impossible  for  department 
to  enforce  present  law  with  means  at  hand — Violations  not  all  for  fraudulent 
purposes,  750 — Marked  all  paper  in  store  "Oleomargarine" — Policy  of  revenue 
department  in  handling  cases — Compromising  with  violators,  751 — No  moonshine 
oleomargarine  made — No  trouble  in  collecting  the  tax — Professor  Morton  quoted, 


INDEX.  885 

752 — About  ingredients  in  oleomargarine — Investigation  of  method  of  producing 
oleo  oil  in  Chicago,  753,  754,  755,  756,  757,  75&— Stamping  original  packages  of 
oleomargarine  will  give  it  badge  of  respectability — Estimate  of  percentage  of 
oleomargarine  sold  as  butter,  759 — Discussion  of  renovated  butter — Dairy  people 
have  nothing  to  do  with  renovated  butter — Cost  of  oleomargarine  discussed,  760 — 
Cost  of  butter  compared  with  oleomargarine,  761 — "You  would  not  buy  lardy- 
looking  stuff  for  your  table" — Dealers  in  butterine  in  the  United  States,  761 — 
Uncolored  oleomargarine  just  as  palatable  as  colored — Would  have  to  commence 
and  educate  people  again — Grout  bill  would  simply  reduce  number  of  people  who 
would  defraud,  762 — Coloring  of  butter  and  oleomargarine — Color  can  be  gotten 
in  butter  by  feeding  cattle  properly — People  could  eat  white  butter  or  butterine 
if  accustomed — Amount  of  special  taxes  under  present  law,  663 — Wadsworth  bill 
would  meet  requirements  of  occasion  and  permit  manufacture  of  colored  oleo- 
margarine, 764. 

WILSON,  Hon.  JAMES,  Secretary  of  Agriculture — Invited  by  the  committee  to  present 
views — Grout  bill  has  my  full  sympathy — Law  of  1886  not  adequate,  414 — 
Increase  in  sale  of  oleomargarine — Mostly  consumed  as  butter — If  sold  in  com- 
pliance with  State  laws — May  diminish  sales  of  colored  oleomargarine — Cow  most 
valuable  agent  for  producer,  415 — Value  of  cow  to  the  soil — Population  increas- 
ing faster  than  cattle — Best  interest  of  cotton-seed  belt  lies  in  dairy  cow,  416 — 
Oleomargarine  not  as  healthy  as  butter — National  law  not  well  enforced — Most 
oleomargarine  sold  as  butter,  417 — Fat  steers  not  desirable  to-day — Small  amount 
of  loss  on  fat  used  in  oleomargarine  amounts  to  little,  418 — Color  in  butter 
deceives  nobody;  color  in  oleomargarine  deceives  everybody,  419 — Renovated 
butter,  422 — Reply  to  dealer  who  says  bill  will  injure  cattle  industry,  425 — The 
future  growers  of  cattle,  426. 


IISTDEX. 


Adulteration:  Pa&e- 

Definition  of 193 

Butter: 

Chart  showing  values  for  ten  years 558 

Creamery 165,263 

White,  used  at  Delmonico's 573 

Quality  of 540 

Prices  of -. 68,80,172,177,215,252,331,481,548,718,722 

Imitation  creamery 165 

Oleo's  competition  with  higher  grades  of 35 

Quality  compared  with  twelve  years  ago 167 

Ladles,  what  they  comprise 165 

A  good  price  for 551 

Accustomed  to  eating  yellow 355 

Keceipts  in  New  York 50,  339,  481 

Cost  to  the  people : 65 

Market  conditions 51 

Green  color  of 513 

Demoralized  market  for,  and  cause 555 

Uncolored,  not  salable  any  more 457 

Sale,  how  damaged  by  oleomargarine 538 

Quantity  made 36 

Highest-priced  article,  white 235 

Bacteria  in 514,  524, 538 

Process  by  which  made  not  questioned  by  workingmen 319 

Standard  of  Philadelphia  market 528 

Made  from  swill-fed  cows 515 

Effect  of  sale  of  oleomargarine  on 522 

How  made  and  shipped  on  farm 165 

Facilities  in  country  for  making 379 

Will  pay  50  or  60  cents  for 507 

Corner  in 174 

Cause  of  advance  in  1899 482 

Natural 186 

Australia's  industry 179 

Talk  of  trust  in 216,269,716 

Prices  of  colored  and  uncolored 192 

Best  way  of  making 270 

Prices  and  supply  of 307 

What  milk  brings  for  manufacturing 229 

How  some  is  made 265 

Sold  at  35  cents 228 

Exports  of 176 

Trade  of  1900 175 

Packing  stock 269 

Quick  production  of 168 

At  15  cents  a  pound 636 

Made  from  dirty  milk 703 

Higher  than  ever  before 696 

How  can  poor  man  buy  at  30  to  35  cents 697 

Believe  country  butter  largely  adulterated 664 

The  South  has  no  interest  in 669 

Where  butter  fat  is  found 586 

Extracts  from  market  papers  on  values 790 

Fixing  the  values  of 679 

887 


888  INDEX. 

Butter — Continued.  Page. 

Excessive  demand  for 748 

Output  for  1899 — New  York  papers'  figures 785 

Fat  unlike  any  other 586 

Cost  of,  compared  with  oleomargarine 761 

A  40  per  cent  fraud  in 716 

Digestibility  of 713 

Inferior  makers  of,  and  the  chemist 695 

Composition  of 712 

Butter — color  in: 

Amotmt  in 263 

Requirements  of  various  markets. . , 263 

Dairymen's  right  to  use 379 

In  December  butter 188 

Twenty-five  years  ago 188 

We  color  butter 228 

Butter  never  white 310 

Butter  naturally  two-thirds  normal  color 525 

Why  butter  is  colored 525 

Where  deception  in  _ .  _• 524 

At  different  seasons 527 

White  butter  in  England  and  France 529 

Little  in  that  consumed  on  farms 530 

Deceives  nobody 419 

Color  of  butter 335 

Why  color  butter 127, 585,  704 

Food  effects  on  butter 22 

Always  was  colored 34 

Butter' s  trade-mark 33 

Winter  butter 11 

Why  not  sell  white 248 

Seventy-five  per  cent  natural 480 

Amount  in  1,000,000  pounds  butter 479 

Different  in  butter 540 

Variations  in  color  of  butter 774 

General  discussion  of 671 

History  of  color  in  olemargarine  and  butter 779,  763 

Color  extracted  from 773 

Uncolored  at  Delmonico's 775 

Would  eat  both  uncolored  if  accustomed  to  it 7 763 

Coloring  butter  at  creameries 707 

Would  you  buy  butter  if  not  colored 660 

Best  New  York  hotels  use  uncolored  butter 651, 633 

A  painted  virgin 715 

"Let  it  fool  the  people  for  eight  months  of  the  year" 698 

Can  be  gotten  by  proper  feeding 763 

Butter,  renovated: 

From  what  made 489 

Quantity  compared  with  total  product 536 

Chemists  can  not  distinguish 538 

Why  anticolor  laws  will  not  apply 537 

Where  made 537 

Patents  on  process 534 

Condition  of  raw  materials 534 

Use  of  acid  in 267 

No  acids  used  by  makers 534 

Process  of  manufacture 534 

Internal-Revenue  Department  should  investigate 390 

Processes  for 387 

House  bill  called  attention  to 40 

Cost  of 39 

General  discussion  of 22, 29 

Secretary  Wilson  on 422 

Charge  makers  of,  are  back  of  Grout  bill 

What  is  it 109 

What  made  of 226,722 

Major  Alvord's  letter  on : 338 

Put  in  oval  packages 486 


INDEX.  889 

Butter,  renovated— Continued.  Page- 
Reference  to 165,760,719,778 

Dairy  people  have  nothing  to  do  with  renovated  butter 760 

Cattle  interests: 

Number  slaughtered 511 

Amount  caul  fat  in - 66,114,510,559 

Have  growers  ever  heard  other  side 251 

When  they  asked  protection 70 

Statistics  of  Kansas  City. 66 

Loss  to,  if  oleomargarine  is  forbidden 332 

Decrease  in  number  of. 332 

Interest  in  oleomargarine 41, 445 

Loss  on,  claimed  if  Grout  bill  passes 120 

Secretary  Wilson's  reply  to  Senator  Dolliver  about 425 

The  future  growers  of  cattle 426 

Loss  to,  infinitesimal  compared  with  damage  of  oleomargarine  to  dairy 

interests 418 

Excessive  fat  steers  a  thing  of  the  past 418 

Population  increasing  faster  than  cattle 416 

Number  cattle  killed  at  Kansas  City 119 

Number  in  United  States 182 

Damage  to 182 

Value  of  fat 115 

Value  of  fat  per  steer 116 

List  of  live-stock  associations 77, 660 

Value  of  live  stock 77 

Majority  of  cattle  owned  in  anticolor  States 452 

Facts  misrepresented 451 

The  facts  in  the  case,  showing  amount  of  loss  per  head 451 

National  Live  Stock  Association  criticised 586 

Cattle  States  and  dairy  States 677 

Estimate  $2  per  head  loss  on  cattle 682 

Cattlemen  generally  not  opposing  bill 662 

Explanation  of  discrepancy  of  statements  on  live-stock  question 681 

Cattle  damage  would  be  $3  to  $4  per  head 655,  661 

Magnitude  of  live-stock  industry 675 

Does  farmer  get  additional  price 788 

Cattle  and  value  of  in  United  States  in  1900 676 

Waste  products  of  packing  industry 673 

Amount  of  caul  fat  per  steer 799 

Inspection  of  animals  at  stock  yards 680 

Magnitude  of  Nebraska  beef  industry 739 

Hard  times  and  cattlemen 691 

Depreciation  in  value  of  cattle 691 

Only  range  men  who  oppose  bill 662 

Swift  and  Co.'s  absurd  figures 603 

Members  know  wrhat  effect  Grout  bill  will  have  on  cattle 660 

Value  of  fat  used  from  steers  in  oleomargarine 661 

Texas  live-stock  raisers  are  against  bill 663 

Cattlemen  alert  to  their  interests 663 

Cleveland : 

Extract  from  message  regarding  prohibitive  tax 391 

Extract  from  message  regarding  fraud 585 

Constituents: 

Will  hear  from 317 

Cotton-seed  oil  interest: 

What  interest  in  oleomargarine 321, 521 

Use  in  Holland  and  Germany 516 

Estimated  proportion  used  in  oleomargarine  in  United  States 321,  487, 671 

Prejudice  against,  once 319 

Cotton-seed  oil  and  color 318 

Loss  per  ton  on  seed 315 

Price  of  cotton  seed 315, 484 

Use  of  caustic  soda  in  refining 348 

Manufacture  of  cotton-seed  oil 325 

Color  of  cotton-seed  oil 347 

Effect  of  passage  of  Grout  bill  on 322, 325 

Number  of  mills  . .  322 


890  INDEX. 

Cotton-seed  oil  interest — Continued.  Page. 

Estimated  loss  per  gallon  by  passage  of  bill 323,  738 

Amount  made  from  ton  of  seed 327 

Amount  used  in  compound  lard 326 

Number  mills  in  Tennessee 324 

Amount  used  in  oleomargarine  in  this  country 324, 511 

Acreage  of  cotton 483 

Value  of  cotton  per  bale 483 

Cotton-seed  oil,  a  little  green 341 

Proportions  of  crop 521 

Best  interests  cotton  belt  with  dairy  cow 416 

Value  of  crop 487, 667 

Cotton-seed  oil  not  a  necessary  ingredient  in  oleomargarine 511 

Value  of  product  of  cotton-seed  oil  of  United  States 487,  665,  667,  725 

Cotton-seed-oil  trust  discussed 732 

White  cotton-seed  oil — sample  of 727 

Who  buy  cotton-seed  oil 725 

Value  of  seed  used  in 725 

Where  mills  are  located 737,  738 

Value  of  oil  mills 723,731 

Cotton  States  not  prosperous 692 

Area  of  cotton  and  dairy  States 736 

Effect  of  bill  on  industry 787 

Don't  want  to  lose  $3,000,000  customs 725 

What  is  butter  oil? 727 

Feeding  cotton-seed  meal  to  cows 730 

Use  of  cotton-seed  oil  as  food 726 

Growth  of  business  in 730 

Export  demand  for 730 

Facts  about  the  oil  business 725 

Healthfulness  of  cotton-seed  oil 668 

Cleanliness  of  cotton-seed  oil 725 

Cotton-seed  oil  in  France 730 

Purity  of  cotton-seed  oil 731 

Cow: 

What  will  become  of  her 92 

Value  of,  to  the  soil 416 

Most  valuable  agent  for  the  producer 415 

Price  of,  affected  by  Grout  bill 67 

Value  of 68,333 

Ability  of  American,  to  produce  milk 334 

Milkers  v.  cotton  farmers 693 

Extract  from  Orange  Judd  Farmer 679 

' '  These  dairymen  are  wealthy  " 696 

Percentage  of  animals  infected  with  tuberculosis 680 

Cows: 

Number  of,  in  United  States 679 

Cowherd: 

How  packers  elected 64 

Creamery  interests: 

Organization  of 66 

Exhibits: 

Sample  wrappers,  Swift's  Premium 813 

Sample  wrapper,  Swift's  Jersey 815 

Sample  wrapper,  Swift's  Lincoln 815 

Exhibition  of  chart  showing  difference  between  oleomargarine 768 

Farmers: 

By  whom  represented 250 

Grout  bill: 

Explanation  of 

The  tax  in 5 

Purpose  of 11 

Effect  of 303 

Why  favored 412,224 

All  food  commissioners  favor  it 445 

Aims  at  fraud 430 

Few  measures  created  so  much  interest 450 

Most  effectual  means  of  stopping  fraud 230 


INDEX.  891 

Grout  bill — Continued.  Pa#e- 

Consumer  a  big  element 121 

Farmers'  interest  in 518 

Secretary  Wilson  011 - - 414 

May  diminish  sales  of  colored  oleomargarine 415 

Pennsylvania  favors  it 152 

Indorsements  of 152 

Will  overcome  our  difficulties 160 

Will  relieve  great  expense 233 

Needed  to  promote  honesty 413 

National  Grange  wants 412 

Why  wanted 441 

Why  it  should  be  passed 248 

Why  it  will  protect 499 

Who  asks  protection 193 

Its  opponents 271 

Its  passage  would  be  an  entering  wedge 323 

Passage  of,  would  prohibit  manufacture  of  oleomargarine 685 

Class  legislation  of  most  objectionable  character 676 

Attempt  to  impede  wheels  of  progress 700 

Aims  at  life  of  great  industry 675,  792,  701 

Poorer  classes  interested  in 689 

From  whom  does  demand  for,  come 688 

Fear  it  will  put  stigma  on  output 726 

Loss  on  ingredients  to  producers 676 

Loss  to  labor  and  manufacturers 671 

Things  it  asks  you  to  do 678 

Advocates'  ground  not  well  taken 734 

No  complaint  from  consumers 685 

Would  simply  reduce  number  of  those  who  would  practice  fraud 762 

Class  legislation 735 

Would  have  to  commence  to  educate  people  again 762 

Is  not  just  legislation 674 

Compared  with  a  horse  race 693 

Who  are  on  the  other  side 696 

South  will  legislate  against  Northern  products 699 

Compared  with  a  boat  race , 695 

A  campaign  of  education 702 

Who  are  opposed  to  it 706 

Government  never  organized  for  such  purposes 695 

In  new  garb  this  time 701 

Congress  should  not  be  used  as  a  bumper 706 

Best  butter  makers  do  not  ask 664 

Unnecessary  and  harmful 665 

Government  would  have  to  quit  everything  else 699 

Object  to  create  a  scarcity  of  low-grade  butter 663 

Farmers  will  become  skilled  in  evading  the  laws 665 

Will  encourage  moonshine  oleomargarine 664 

By  whom  are  such  introduced 663 

First  section  of  bill 635 

Will  it  stop  the  fraud 634 

Who  the  bill  is  pushed  by 587 

No  hardship  to  consumers 586 

Simply  benefits  butter  men 656 

Is  not  the  object  to  drive  colored  oleomargarine  out  of  the  market 634 

Think  it  will  to  a  large  extent  drive  colored  oleo  out 636 

Would  solve  the  oleomargarine  question 631 

Why  the  10-cent  tax  is  necessary 590 

Is  class  legislation 655 

Why  commerce  clause  is  wanted 650 

Protest  against  passage  of 663 

Its  one  purpose 401 

Why  unwise  and  unjust 399 

Its  avowed  purpose  and  its  real  purpose _  291 

Only  reduces  tax 306 

Attempt  to  tax  one  interest  at  the  expense  of  another 183 

Some  who  help  pass  it  will  stay  at  home 320 

Will  not  raise  revenue 200 


892  INDEX. 

Grout  bill — Continued.  Page. 

Change  suggested  in 213 

Too  drastic 568 

Secretary  Gage's  objection  to 561 

Measure  not  honest 15,  306 

Believe  bill  will  destroy  industry 37 

Intended  to  destroy  industry 15 

Attention  called  to"  precise  wording 42 

Labor  opposes 505 

Destruction  of  industry 353 

Establishing  a  precedent 353 

Aim  at  life  of  oleomargarine  industry 65 

Legal  questions: 

Constitutional  questions 153 

Bill  is  constitutional 154 

Original-package  decision  under  Wilson  law 

Constitutionality  of  tax 5 

Constitutionality  not  questioned 

Congress  no  right  to  prevent  fraud  through  taxation 16 

Plumley  v.  Commonwealth. 124 

Legality  of  tax 104 

Wilson  Act,  discussion  of 105, 106, 107 

Constitutional  restrictions 106 

Legal  aspects  of  color  question 

Interstate-commerce  question 97, 123 

Why  right  was  given  Congress  to  regulate  interstate  commerce 124 

Congress  can  not  delegate  power  to  State 393, 400 

The  Constitution  and  commerce 699 

Hogs: 

Value  of,  and  loss  on,  by  passage  of  bill 68 

Lard: 

Amount  neutral,  used  in  oleomargarine 511 

Compound,  attempt  to  tax 

What  is  neutral 41 

Labor: 

Proportion  idle  in  rural  districts 550 

Federations  tell  a  curious  story 407 

Reprisals  threatened 505 

Oleomargarine  question  discussed  by 351 

Want  to  perpetuate  employment  of  men  making  oleomargarine 

Northern  workingmen  better  fixed  than  Southern 692 

Federation  of,  disapproves 706 

Lands: 

Appreciation  in  value  of 

Letters — from — 

Holland  Butterine  Company,  Pittsburg,  Pa 199 

Grosvenor,  E.  O. ,  food  commissioner,  Michigan 447 

Blackburn,  J.  E 354 

Cincinnati,  telling  of  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter 474-476 

Braun  &  Fitts,  guaranteeing  protection  against  State  laws 466 

Wm.  J.  Moxley,  guaranteeing  protection  in  case  of  prosecution 465 

Forgery  claimed 82 

Hugh  V.  Murray,  warning  dealers  not  to  sell  oleomargarine  as  butter 465 

Cotton  Growers'*  Protective  Association  of  Georgia 487 

Hadley,  S.  S. ,  Cedar  Rapids,  Nebr 742 

Dougherty,  Matt,  Sidney,  Nebr 744 

Trest,  A.M.,  Chappell,  Nebr 747 

Reimers,  John,  Grand  Island,  Nebr 744 

Tierney,  Ansley,  Nebr 742 

Knight,  Chas.  Y.,  referred  to 705 

Moxley,  W.  J.,  referred  to - 705 

Harvey,  Geo.,  Kearney,  Nebr 747 

Murray,  Hugh  V. ,  referred  to 705 

Woods,  F.  M.,  South  Omaha,  Nebr 747 

Delatour,  S.  P 742 

Allen,  R.  M.,  Ames,  Nebr 744 

Hord,  T.  B.,  Central  City,  Nebr 743 

Anderson,  N.  L. ,  Sacramento,  Nebr 744 


INDEX.  893 

Oleomargarine —  Page. 

Price  of 21,184,311 

If  sold  in  compliance  with  State  laws , 415 

Consumption  in  England - 383 

Can't  pay  10-cent  tax . 38,  47 

No  objection  to  legislation  for  identification  of 

Branding  of 386 

Don't  rob  it  of  one  of  its  first  qualities 

Dealers  in  Chicago  district 463 

30  cents  a  pound 470 

Retail  dealers  in  United  States 463 

Proportion  of  uncolored 547 

Labels  used  on,  in  New  Jersey 331 

Exports  of 59 

Benefit  to  farmer 337 

When  first  introduced 541 

Imitates  butter  with  every  ingredient 17 

History  of  . . . : 217 

Serving  at  restaurants  a  legal  sale 457 

Tax  it  now  pays 70 

Amount  produced  in  Chicago 463 

Will  stand  on  its  merits 383 

Profits  in  sale  of 469 

Sells  best  when  butter  is  high 551 

Percentage  of  butter  in  it 54 

Without  color  would  look  like  lard 336 

If  driven  out,  creamery  system  would  suffer 546 

Revenue  on,  well  collected - 562 

Can  not  be  sold  uncolored 39 

Distinguishing  from  butter 512 

People  forced  to  use  it 413 

If  suppressed,  butter  will  be  high 352 

Difficulty  of  securing  evidence  against  illicit  vendors 498 

The  present  law  on 212 

First  prize  as  butter 522 

Attempt  to  sell  it  white  in  Cincinnati 531 

Coloring  uncolored  product 533 

Increase  in  sale  of 415 

Manufacture  in  Holland 337 

Sold  to  consumers 20 

Pounds  illegally  sold 463 

What  10-cent  tax  would  make  it  cost 382 

Makers  of,  swear  their  books  would  incriminate  them 493 

Sales  outside  New  York  just  as  damaging 372 

No  detriment  to  butter 166 

Never  quoted  on  open  market 548 

Melting  point  of,  compared  with  butter 512 

Keeping  qualities  of 357 

Investment  in  business 47 

Fats  used 54 

Clarifying  point 512 

Fooling  the  old  lady  with 510 

Percentage  of  ingredients  of 511 

Temperature  raw  materials  heated  to 510 

Eating  it  no  disgrace 359 

Profits  in  sales  of 7 

Amount  sold  in  New  York  State 369 

Cost  of 369 

Prohibited  absolutely  in  Canada 413 

Don't  want  it  uncolored  because  it  don't  look  like  butter 312 

"I  never  ate  any;  I  don't  have  to " 313 

Composition  of 187 

How  made 187 

Almost  identical  with  butter 257 

Discrimination  against,  condemned 255 

No  demand  for 221 

Experience  of  Congressman  in  District 196 

About  branding  under  new  rulings 196 


894  INDEX. 

Oleomargarine— Continued.  Page. 

How  sold  in  District 195 

Used  in  majority  of  Soldiers'  Homes 261 

Nutritive  qualities  of 260 

Natural  color  of 259 

Not  an  imitation •_ 266 

Can't  taste  be  cultivated  for  it  without  color 271 

What  makes  difference  in  price 269 

It  is  butter 261 

Ashamed  to  buy  it  under  its  own  name 446 

Profits  in  manufacture  of 442 

Proof  that  it  can  be  sold  uncolored 433 

Government's  stamp  of  approval 346 

Not  in  imitation  of  butter 401 

Can't  stop  traffic  in  color 407 

Is  white  oleo  good  enough  for  the  workingman 307 

Why  disreputable  to  buy  it 309 

Pride  of  the  poor 309 

Average  buyer  of  butter  doesn't  want  oleo 225 

People  know  what  they  are  buying 308 

How  sold 292 

Are  hotel  and  restaurant  patrons  notified 297 

Retail  dealers  in  Ohio 297 

The  combine  of  makers 82 

Amount  consumed  in  each  State 90 

Where  colored  article  is  prohibited 89 

Whom  it  benefits 183 

Per  capita  consumption  in  United  States 91 

Production  of 87 

Ingredients  of 88, 115 

Why  not  occupy  whole  butter  field 522 

Every  ingredient  of,  from  farm 202 

How  sold  in  Rhode  Island 201 

Three- fourths  sold  in  Massachusetts  sold  in  original  package 202 

Difference  in  grades 206 

An  imitation  of  butter 204 

Try  to  put  goods  on  market  honestly 210 

Consumption  in  Rhode  Island 207 

Senator  Mason's  report  on 213 

Keeps  down  butter  prices 382 

Patents  for  making 129 

Advertising  of 384 

Why  all  buttermen  do  not  sell  it 497 

Butterrnen  not  interfering  with 240 

Where  sold 246 

Purity  of 26 

Study  of  the  question 773 

About  ingredients  in 676,  753,  765 

Room  for  oleomargarine  and  butter 674 

The  finished  product 721 

How  sold  in  Omaha 748 

Cost  of,  discussed 760 

Retail  price  of,  in  Kansas  City 686 

History  of  oleomargarine  one  of  strife 701 

No  secret  in  manufacture  of 781 

Investigation  asked 674 

Experience  of  Congressman  Bailey 690 

Claim  of  $4,000,000  a  year  loss 730 

Value  of  ingredients  in 676 

Encourage  handling  according  to  law 793 

Any  farmer  can  make 673 

Stamping  of  wrappers  on 796 

Ingredients  will  become  offensive  if  not  properly  used 766 

Samples  put  up  according  to  law 706 

Demand  due  to  education 798 

Advertising  in  Chicago 702 

Dealers  in  and  amount  sold  in  various  States 602 

Prohibited  absolutely  in  Canada 586 


INDEX.  89'5 


Oleomargarine  —  Continued. 

Melting  tests  compared  with  butter  ....................................  782 

Use  of  glucose  as  a  preservative  .............................              ...  776 

Dealers  in  United  States  ..............................................  761 

No  moonshine  oleo  made  .............................................  752 

Amount  sold  in  Nebraska  last  year  ....................................  746 

Report  on  examination  of  ingredients  ..................................  768 

Percentage  of,  compared  with  butter  ................................ 

Manufacture  of,  under  modern  improvements  ..........................  703 

An  up-to-date  product  ................................................  780 

Why  not  brand  all  aM'actory  ..........................  .  ...............  796 

Composition  of  fats  explained  and  compared  ...........................  771 

Damage  to  export  trade  ...............................................  737 

Must  sell  as  butter  to  be  successful  .....................................  631 

Demonstrating  the  merits  of  .................  '.  ........................  702 

Prices  compared  with  butter  ........................................  697,  746 

The  public  has  not  asked  protection  ...................................  .  717 

Sale  of,  in  Nebraska  ..................................................  707 

Manufacturers  of,  use  different  formulas  ................................  710 

Cost  of  ..............................................................  669 

Product  of  sterilized  fats  and  milk  .....................................  715 

Farmers  will  commence  making  .......................................  697 

Origin  of  the  ingredients  ..............................................  720 

Melting  point  of  ......................................................  586 

Workings  of  a  factory  .................................................  720 

Temperature  of  melting  fats  ...........................................  720 

Comparison  of  salted  butter  with  ......................................  713 

How  sold  ............................................................  711 

The  birth  of  ..........................................................  714 

New  industry  ought  to  be  protected  ....................................  723 

Color  of  uncolored  oleo  ....................................  .............  651 

Character  and  amounts  of  ingredients  ................................   709,  710 

Must  be  sold  as  butter  to  be  a  success  ..................................  600 

Statement  of,  how  made  ............................................  605,  718 

Caul  fat  in  ...........................................................  604 

Why  tax  uncolored  anything  ..........................................  633 

The  poor  man's  butter  ................................................  584 

Comparative  statement  of  output  ......................................  584 

Business  is  not  legitimate  .............................................  585 

More  openly  sold  in  western  Pennsylvania  .............................  635 

Will  be  within  reach  of  poor  man  under  Grout  bill  ..........  .'  ..........  632 

Amount  sold  in  Pennsylvania  .....................  .  ...................  631 

Oleomargarine,  coior  in  — 

Right  of  people  for  ...................................................  316 

Why  one  if  not  the  other  .............................................  183 

Legality  of  ...........................................................  85 

Why  reprehensible  in  oleomargarine  ..................................  374 

Artificial  coloring  invented  by  oleomargarine  makers  ..................  35,  406 

Made  by  cotton-seed  oil  ...............................................  402 

Testimony  of  chemist  in  regard  to  .....................................  403 

For  same  reasons  as  in  butter  .........................................  405 

Right  to  use  .........................................................  346 

Unfair  that  oleomargarine  makers  should  not  use  .......................  323 

Denmark  eats  without  color  ...........................................  431 

Legal  view  of  right  to  use  .............................................  436 

Both  butter  and  oleomargarine  are  colored  .............................  262 

Its  effect  upon  the  palate  ........................................  194,  272,  382 

Poor  man's  pride  ...................................................  273,  311 

Why  not  select  another  ...............................................  284 

Number  of  shades  ...............................  191 

Forbidden  in  oleomargarine  ...........................................  189 

Pink  law  decision  ....................................................  190 

Justice  Peckham's  opinion  ............................................  190 

Agree  upon  distinct  ...................................................  339 

Natural  color  of  oleomargarine  ........................................  22,  47 

Not  to  make  resemble  butter  ..........................................  40 

And  butter  ..........................................................  8,  1  1 

Advertisement  of  Wells,  Richardson  &  Co.  '  s  .  .  388 


896  INDEX. 

Oleomargarine,  color  in — Continued. 

Makes  temptation  to  sell  as  butter 243 

Not  30,000  pounds  uncolored  oleomargarine  sold  in  United  States 178 

Amount  in  1,000,000  pounds  oleomargarine 479 

No  objection  to  red 490 

Can  be  made  by  mixture  of  fats 340 

Denial  that  mixture  of  fats  will  color  oleomargarine 340 

Given  by  ingredients 18 

Imitates  butter 125 

Effect  if  not  colored 204 

Anything  the  matter  with '. 317 

Why  not  eat  oleomargarine  white 358 

Coloring  used 54 

Palatability  of  uncolored  oleomargarine 687 

Both  oleomargarine  and  butter  should  be  colored 794 

' '  You  would  not  buy  lardy-looking  stuff  for  your  table  " 761 

.Failure  to  sell  uncolored  oleomargarine 780 

Uncolored  oleomargarine  just  as  palatable  as  colored 762 

Poor  people  would  not  buy  uncolored  oleomargarine 798 

Doing  nothing  in  uncolored  oleomargarine 785 

People  might  be  educated  to  eat  uncolored 736 

Questions  regarding  letter  on  color  of  oleomargarine 708 

Uncolored  oleomargarine  could  not  be  sold  any  more  than  uncolored  butter  708 

Uncolored  oleomargarine  is  unsalable 740 

Housewives  know  that  oleomargarine  is  colored 717 

"Oleomargarine  has  always  been  colored  and  butter  has  not " 670 

Attention  called  to  different  shades  of  color 712 

Could  uncolored  oleomargarine  find  sale 651 

Oleomargarine  should  have  monopoly  on  color 664 

We  want  whisky  colored 660 

About  coloring  oleomargarine 585 

Uncolored  oleomargarine  deceives  no  one 651 

Oleomargarine,  fraud  in  sale  of — 

Incentive  for  fraud 238 

Every  dealer  in  Philadelphia  sold,  as  butter 

Refusal  of  manufacturers  to  show  books 

Aurora  Produce  Company  swindle 

1  i  Covering  up ' '  dealers 491 

Fraud  shown  to  collector  by  Chicago  Record 495 

Scheme  to  sell  as  butter  and  evade  law 498 

Fraud  in  Baltimore 440 

Chicago  Butter  and  Egg  Board's  estimate  of  fraud  in  Chicago 555 

Documentary  evidence  connecting  manufacturers  with  fraud 553 

One  thousand  convictions  for  selling  as  butter 368 

Tricks  to  evade  law 247 

Fraud  in  name  of  seller —  246 

Production  of  swindling  sign 461 

Sold  as  butter  in  eight  out  of  ten  places 

Grocer  clerk's  statement 461 

Photograph  of  store  front  exhibited 

Manufacturers'  defense  of  fraud  shown 462 

Colored  wrapping-  paper  scheme 

Fraud  in  concealed  marks 464 

Fraud  in  brand 463 

How  sold  by  peddlers  in  New  York 

Will  require  national  legislation  to  stamp  out  fraud 

Seventy-five  per  cent  sold  as  butter 

How  enables  competitors  to  beat  honest  dealers 220 

As  seen  by  farmers 

Fraud  admitted  at  boarding  houses 

For  seven  years  endeavored  to  enforce  honest  sale 

Object  is  to  sell  as  butter  at  butter  prices 

Fraud  in  Paterson,  N.  J 377 

Not  largely  sold  as  oleomargarine 224 

Amount  sold  as  butter 

Fraud  induced  by  large  profits 

Its  use  by  irresponsible  dealers 225 

No  wholesaler  wants  it  sold  for  what  it  is 224 


INDEX.  897 

Oleomargarine,  fraud  in  sale  of — Continued.  Page. 

Fifty  thousand  dollars'  worth  as  butter  per  year  by  one  retailer 226 

How  disposed  of 223 

Dealers  admit  must  sell  for  butter 222 

Sold  as  butter 121,312 

Thrives  upon  fraud 121 

Fraud  on  a  large  scale 122 

Have  they  really  proven  any  amount  of  fraud 291 

Claim  manufacturers  do  not  defend  fraud 302 

Sharpless  brand  of  butter  counterfeited 220 

Experience  with  fraud  at  Pittsburg 229 

Report  of  Senate  Committee  on  Manufactures 85 

Sold  as  butter 19,20,27,28,135,516 

Denial  of  fraud  in  Cincinnati 520 

Ninety  per  cent  sold  as  butter  in  Chicago 532 

More  fraud  where  anticplor  laws 201 

Could  be  stopped  by  original-package  law 203 

Twenty-five  per  cent  sold  as  butter 202 

Mostly  consumed  as  butter 415 

Most  oleomargarine  sold  as  butter 417 

Fraudulent  sale  of,  in  New  York 125 

Would  10-cent  tax  stop  fraud 127 

Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  quoted 19 

Condition  in  Massachusetts 28 

Manufacturers  and  fraud 5 

Why  not  honestly  sold 219 

Business  is  fraud  all  through 218 

Few  people  buy  oleomargarine  knowingly 217 

Charge  of  fraud  corroborated  by  every  food  commissioner 160 

Doubt  if  dealers  will  sell  oleomargarine  as  such 232 

Wholesale  dealers  asked  to  enter  fictitious  names 234 

No  law  can  stop  fraud  while  oleomargarine  is  colored 235 

Retailers  principal  violators  of  law 383 

Amount  fraudulently  sold 387 

Fraud  in  Philadelphia 237 

Concealing  marks  on  original  packages 239 

Fraud  in  marking  package 463 

Chicago  oleomargarine  makers,  defense  of 467 

Moxley'  s  defense  of  illicitly  made  oleomargarine 468 

Seven  thousand  five  hundred  dollars  offered  in  settlement 471 

Indictments  for  fraud  against  Washington  man 471 

Fraud  in  Cincinnati 473 

Sympathy  of  makers  with  fraud 491 

Seventy-five  per  cent  sold  as  butter  in  Chicago 469 

Large  percentage  sold  as  butter 473 

Senator  Allen's  experience 509 

All  was  sold  as  butter 440 

' '  Push  its  sale  and  build  up  a  reputation  for  good  butter  " 477 

Scheme  for  defrauding 367 

Documentary  evidence  of  defense  of  fraudulent  dealers  by  manufacturers 

in  Chicago 552 

Sale  of  oleomargarine  for  butter 795 

Compared  with  corruption  in  sale  of  clothing 668 

Dealers  do  not  sell  oleomargarine  promiscuously  as  butter 781 

Estimate  of  percentage  of  oleomargerine  sold  as  butter 759 

Violations  not  all  for  fraudulent  purposes 750 

Difference  between  fraud  and  innocent  deception 698 

How  the  public  is  defrauded 591 

Oleomargarine  fraud  in  New  Jersey 719 

Sold  as  oleomargarine  at  20  cents  and  as  butter  at  25  cents 638 

Ocular  demonstration  of  fraud 637 

Ninety  per  cent  oleomargarine  sold  as  butter 631 

Oleomargarine  sold  in  wrappers  with  corners  turned  down 709 

Fraud  in  colored  wrappers 639 

Trade  urged  to  sell  butterine  for  just  what  it  is 781 

Failure  of  Congressmen  to  find  marks 639 

Fraud  encouraged  by  manufacturers 591 

S.  Rep.  2043 57 


S9S  INDEX. 

Oleomargarine,  Government  inspection  of: 

Factories  must  be  ready  for _  . 

Inspection  of ". Ill 

Inspection  by  Government _ 

Government  does  inspect m 

No  revenue  agents  in  factories 

Visits  of  inspectors  to  factories 564 

Inspectors  not  experts 5*>4 

Puntvof B 

No  scientific  inspectors 264 

Government  agents  do  not  report  on  puritv  of  ingredients 564 

Refusal  to  make  returns I 486 

Number  of  chemical  analyses 

Oleomargarine,  healthfnlness  of : 

Healthfuhiessol  oleomargarine 19, 64, 85, 127. 136, 182, 205, 5 

Reference  in  Plumley  r.  Commonwealth 191 

As  healthful  as  butteV 417 

Germs  not  killed  in  fats 

Question  in  doubt 241 

Opinion  of  chemists  r.  physicians 

Dr.  Clark's  statement....' liv 

Not  a  question  of 

Not  germane 448 

Transmission  of  mberoulosis  from 241 

Why  encourage  sale  if  not  healthful 193 

Dr.  Wiley's  statement 

Difference  in  butvric  acid 155 

Should  be  forbidden  if  not  healthful 194 

Digestibility  of 

Digestive  experiments  with 48 

Digestibility  of,  compared  with  butter ...  144,308 

Recognised  by  supreme  court 396 

Innocuousness  of  oleomargarine  has  not  been  shown 

Sterilization  of  mflk  a  guaid  against  disease 

Citation  of  authorities  on  heatthfumes? 

Dairy  herds  affected  with  tuberculosis 

Opmlons  of  leading  chemists 

Germs  in  butter  and  oleomargarine 511 

AU  food  products  carry  dangerous  germs 810 

Investigations  occasionally  made  regarding  purity 765 

Digue  of  heat  necessary  to  destroy  tuberae  germ 809 

England's  experience  with  healthruln^  585 

Experience  of  France  with  heatthfnmess 

Professor  Morton  quoted 

Reference  to  authorities  on 675 

Tuberculosis  in  milk 680 

Oleomargarine  is  beaKhfal  and  dean 666 

Colored  oleomargarine  a  harmkBB  article 679 

Avenge  digestibditv  of  oleomargarine  and  butter 791 

Heat^roxlucing&ts'andtheirdjgestibilin 714 

PalatattmyoTioods "... 

Testimony  of  chemists  referred  to 797 

Otoooil: 

Method  of  manufacture 56,510 

A:..:  ::.:  y.:.^:~::~.r  :':   :_.  ;sv.I  ::-.-  •::  :-.-  T-.-.JT  A:.::   .1 ->?^ 

FbSEabffityofdkeased&ftm 687 

~Myjff ,     *      ~f  -.— _ ^-i    -•      Mmm  ,,  _    r"!  f.  -,„  -  ,jjr  •       ,  i  ,  _  ^:  ^  ^ 

fiuiit.iii  o*  czpons  upon  cramcsnc  vaiue OPQ 

Production  oX  and  its  cleanhness. 

The  exportation  of 687 

Se^cf 


Alar*ma—M»t  not  be  colored  yellow 593 

598 

be  labeled 

:!::    -  .    :   -- :.   -  ...        '  - 

Colorado— Most  not  be  colored  .vellow SM 

Co—  *;::  :::-M^:  BotbeooloMd 

Delaware—  Must  not  be  colored  yellow -5W 

District  of  Columbia— Muet  be 


INDEX.  899 

Oleomargarine,  State  laws — Continued.  p*?e. 

Florida— Must  be  labeled 594 

Georgia — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 594 

Idaho — Branding  required 594 

Illinois — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 595 

Indiana — Must  be  labeled " 595 

Iowa — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 595 

Kansas — No  laws " 595 

Kentucky — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 595 

Louisiana — Must  be  labeled 595 

Maine — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 

..ohusetts — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 595 

Michigan — Law  forbidding   coloring  yellow,  approved   April    15, 

declared  void  on  account  of  irregularity  of  passage 596 

Minnesota — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 596 

-sippi — Label  law ". 596 

iri — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 596 

Montana — State  taxes  10  cents  per  pound 596 

Nevada — Branding  required 596 

Nebraska — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 596 

Hampshire — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 597 

New  Jersey — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 597 

New  Mexico — No  law ". 597 

New  York — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 597 

North  Carolina — Label  law 597 

North  Dakota — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 597 

Ohio — Must  not  be  colored  yellow ./. 597 

Oklahoma— No  law .' 598 

Oregon — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 598 

Pennsylvania — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 598 

Rhode  Island— Must  be  branded 598 

South  Carolina — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 598 

South  Dakota — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 598 

Tennessee — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 598 

Texas— No  law ." 598 

Utah — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 598 

Vermont— Must  not  be  colored  yellow  (Jaws  of  1899) 598 

Virginia — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 599 

Washington — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 599 

West  Virginia — Must  be  colored  pink 599 

Wisconsin — Must  not  be  colored  yellow 599 

Wyoming — No  dairy  laws ". 599 

Map  showing  number  of  anticolor 557 

History  of 236 

We  are  not  the  police  power 232 

Difficult  for  individuals  to  enforce 231 

-:ates  know  what  they  want 153 

Difficulties  of  enforcement 152.  469 

Purpose  of.  shown 38 

Rhode  Island's  law 16 

Would  be  made  effective 16 

Of  Pennsylvania 

Police  lowers  of  States 103. 124 

-ding  hotels  and  restaurants 212 

Are  sufficient 200 

Rhode  Island  satisfied 200 

Has  not  evasion  of,  brought  oleomargarine  into  disrepute 532 

Will  have  force 108 

Ohio  pure-food  law 294 

Why  oleomargarine  makers  quietly  acquiesced  to 2s<i 

Supreme  Court  decisions  on '. 

Enforcement  of,  in  Ohio 290 

Testing  of 122 

History  of,  New  York  State 121 

Why  not  repealed 406 

Right  of  tax  under 392 

Violations  in  Tennessee 329 

How  happen  in  South ' 

H  -\v  justice  is  defeated 163 


900  INDEX. 

Oleomargarine,  State  laws — Continued.  Page. 

Why  not  enforced . 161 

Money  spent  in  prosecutions 161 

Difficulty  of  jury  trials 162 

Banqueting  jurors -  -  - 162 

Openly  violated  in  Nebraska 450 

How  handicapped  in  New  York 366 

Eegarding  boarding  houses  in  New  York 367 

Why  passed 435 

Protection  against,  guaranteed 1 62,  226,  439,  474 

How  evaded  in  Wisconsin 443 

Where  enforced 281 

The  pink 189 

How  evaded  by  dealers 343 

History  of  Pennsylvania  prosecutions  under * .  542 

"Persecution"  under 544 

Attempt  to  enforce  in  Illinois 465 

Cost  of  effort  to  enforce 468 

Decision  of  New  Jersey  courts 336 

Should  they  be  violated  when  disputed? 244 

All  claimed  to  be  unconstitutional 245 

Cost  of  enforcing  in  New  York 370 

How  Illinois  food  department  was  beaten 468 

Charter  of  oleomargarine  concern  revoked  for  violations  of 469 

How  is  yellow  oleomargarine  sold  in  New  Jersey 334 

Legal  machinery  of  New  Jersey 331 

If  nonsensical  were  repealed 547 

Anticolor  only  can  protect  consumers 453 

Repeal  them 

Conspiracy  denied 280 

Simply  ask  compliance  of  law 631 

Difficulties  of  enforcing 590 

Consumers  never  prosecute 704 

Cost  of  enforcement 631 

State  laws  declared  unconstitutional 701 

Discussion  of  violations  of 786 

First  legislation  in  Maryland 647 

Reference  to  map  as  shady,  dark  business 700 

Judge  Harlan's  opinion  of  coloring  oleomargarine 652 

The  overriding  of  State  laws 583 

Best  lawyers  always  employed  to  defend  violators 601 

Oleomargarine — national  law: 

Act  of  1886  not  adequate 414 

Force  inadequate  for  enforcement 565 

Not  well  enforced 417 

Attempts  to  get  enforcement i 237 

No  interest  in  enforcement  of  branding  clause 532 

Offenses  against 562 

Where  information  of  violations  come  from 533 

Why  increase  of  penalty  would  be  unwise 532 

Policy  of  Revenue  Department  in  handling  case 751 

The  law  of  1886 701 

Provisions  of  present  law 702,  792 

History  of  legislation  on  oleomargarine 647 

Recommend  a  10-cent  tax 589 

History  of  act  of  1886 588 

Marked  all  paper  in  store  ' '  oleomargarine  " 751 

Impossible  for  Department  to  enforce  present  law  with  means  at  hand 750 

Conversation  with  district  attorney  on 648 

Law  should  not  protect  in  selection  of  food 656 

Revenue  officers  do  not  attend  to  police  portion  of  bill 648 

Chief  work  of  Department 765 

Provisions  of  Hatch  bill 588 

Compromising  with  violators 751 

What  has  the  Internal-Revenue  Department  done 589 

Revenue  detective  service  will  have  to  be  increased 665 

Recommendations  of  changes  to  make  law.  more  effective 750 

Expected  law  to  be  enforced 589 

Stamp  on  the  oleomargarine  package 686 


INDEX.  901 


Petitions: 

Why  none  from  the  South  ............................................  317 

From  cattle  owners  for  passage  of  bill  ..................................  662 

Regarding  petitions  received  by  members  ..............................  705 

Resolutions:  ' 

Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  condemns  Grout  bill  ....................  360,  505 

Chicago  Federation  of  Labor  condemns  colored  oleomargarine  ...........  472 

South  St.  Paul  Live  Stock  Exchange  .....  .  .............................  57 

Commission  Merchants'  League  of  the  United  States  ....................  447 

National  Live  Stock  Association  .......................................  77 

Vote  on  .............................................................  80 

National  Live  Stock  Exchange  ......................................  .  .  185 

Condemning  Grout  bill  defeated  .......................................  518 

From  Cincinnati  explained  ...........................................  554 

From  Cincinnati  .....................................................  520 

From  labor  organizations  —  source  of  ...................................  471 

Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Exchange  .....................................  71 

Decorators  of  Cleveland,  Ohio  .........................................  362 

Horseshoers'  Union  ..................................................  361 

Building  Trades'  Council  of  Cleveland  .................................  508 

Sioux  City  Live  Stock  Exchange  ......................................  60 

Cotton-seed  crushers  ..................................................  58 

Kansas  City  Mercantile  Club  ..........................................  61 

From  South  Omaha  Live  Stock  Exchange,  against  bill  ..................  741 

From  Texas  Cattle  Raisers'  Association  ................................  653 

From  South  St.  Joseph  Live  Stock  Exchange  ...........................  654 

Stearin: 

In  all  oils  ............................................................  510 

Use  of  stearin  in  oleomargarine  ........................................  672 

Stearin  in  butter  .....................................................  769 

Stearin  in  oleomargarine  and  butter  ....................................  777 

Stearin  in  cotton-seed  oil  ..............................................  715 

Corrected  statement  of  amount  of  stearin  in  oleomargarine  and  butter  ____  809 

Tawney,  Hon.  J.  A.  : 

Attempt  to  defeat  ....................................................  63 

Tax,  internal-revenue: 

On  mixed  flour  ......................................................  516 

Percentage  of  loss  in  collecting,  on  oleomargarine  ....................  562 

Will  collect  ..........................................................  534 

Uses  of  ..............................................................  448 

Amount  of  special  tax  under  present  law  ______  ........................  „  763 

Repressive  taxation  ..................................................  584 

Would  not  the  10-cent  tax  drive  colored  oleomargarine  out  of  the  market.  .  634 

Object  of  tax  on  oleomargarine  ........................................  584 

Could  not  sell  oleomargarine  with  additional  tax  of  8  cents  ............  ...  784 

Reduction  of  tax  on  uncolored  discussed  ...............................  686 

No  trouble  in  collecting  the  tax  ..............................  .  ........  752 

Ten-cent  tax  regarded  prohibitive  .......................  .  .............  750 

Tax  will  be  collected  if  imposed  .......................................  592 

Why  not  tax  cotton  because  it  is  supplanting  wool  ......................  666 

Wadsworth  substitute: 

The  worst  thing  Congress  could  pass  ...................................  226 

Difference  between,  and  present  law  ...................................  305 

Able  work  of  oleomargarine  makers  ...................................  376 

Ocular  demonstration  of  ..............................................  568 

How  it  will  prevent  fraud  .............................................  568 

Why  not  remove  stamp  as  easily  as  to  fail  to  put  on  .....................  532 

Difference  between  offenses  under,  and  present  law  .....................  566 

Secretary  Gage's  opinion  ..............................................  566 

Does  not  protect  restaurant  or  hotel  patron  .............................  571 

Passage  advocated  ....................................................  390 

Vastly  more  damaging  than  any  other  legislation  Congress  could  enact.  .  .  240 

Its  viciousness  ...............  1  .......................................  245 

Wadsworth  bill  would  meet  requirements  of  occasion  and  permit  manu- 

facture of  colored  oleomargarine  ..........................  ___  ........  764 

Stamping  original  package  will  give  oleomargarine  a  badge  of  respectability  .  759 

Woolgrowers: 

Why  not  protect  .....................................................  110 

o 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 
BRANCH    OF    THE    COLLEGE    OF    AGRICULTURE 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


22  193? 


3m-9,'30 


U.S.     Congress.     Senate. 

U5 

Coimittee 

on  agricultu: 

re 

and  foresl 

iry. 

•The  oleonu 

irgarlne  bill. 

' 

. 

'•\ 

•*•  <?• 

. 

• 

LIBRARY,  BRANCH  OF  THE  COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE,  DAVIS 


